Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Fire Station 1 & HQ - Water St. PC 20-20
AGENDA ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION August24,2020 Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director# Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner C' o. 1. SUBJECT 2. SUMMARY eet, a ssia prk r h t We ,uize an exisg 3,8 n-g y by h Ds,fo reserve ppts h rj s z (0)e Fam s h s he h tao a s )h h a ss h h h i r r 3. RECOMMENDED ACTION 186 -1 ;Z G N0.13 1 2 OP N G ZO G M F C P S GL Y S D TI ,,Q.F .; D P D S V W .5 8 2 , E T V .16 2 CONS C .1 HEADQU T 1 .W E AN ARK AT A 180 W E PC ITEM 1 08/24/2020 4. AUTHORIZATION GUIDELINES Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Table 17.08.020 and Section 17.10.020.B.2. authorizes the Planning Commission to advise the City Council on Zone Changes and OMC Table 17.08.020 General Note (b) authorizes the Planning Commission to advise the City Council on all associated applications for the project. OMC Section 17.10.080 and Section 7.A of the City of Orange Local CEQA Guidelines authorize the Planning Commission to recommend an action on Mitigated Negative Declarations. 5. PROJECT BACKGROUND Applicant: City of Orange Property Owner City of Orange Property Location 105 S. Water Street and 180 S. Water Street Existing General Plan Public Facilities Max. 0.5 FAR and Institutions Max 2.0 Land Use Element FAR (PFI) and Low Density Residential 2-6 du/ac (LOR) Designation Proposed General Plan No change Land Use Element Existing Zoning Office Professional (0-P) and Single Family Residential Classification 6,000 sq. ft. (R-1-6) Proposed Zoning Public Institution (P-1) for the fire station and headquarters. The parking lot will remain Single Family Residential 6,000 sq. ft. (R-1-6) Site Size Fire Station and Headquarters Lot - 1.52 acres Parking Lot - 1.23 acres Circulation Existing circulation patterns (automobile and pedestrian) and sidewalks around the site will be retained. The apparatus exit/response driveway for Fire Station No. 1 will be onto Chapman Avenue. Stop signs and emergency warning systems will be installed along Chapman Avenue. Water Street will be used for apparatus returns to the site. Pedestrian access to Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters will be located at the northeast corner of the building at the Chapman Avenue and Water Street intersection. Persons using the parking lot across Water Street would need to cross the street. PC ITEM 2 08/24/2020 Existing Conditions The main project site where the buildlnq is proposed is unpaved, graded with little to no vegetation, and is vacant except for an existing storage building onsite. There are multiple parcels that exist on the site and a Tentative Parcel Map is proposed to merge all the parcels into a . single parcel. The parking site is a combination of asphalt paving and compacted gravel, fenced, with a few small trees and shrubs on site. Surrounding Land Uses and The area is the eastern gateway to Old Towne but is not Zoning in the Historic Overlay district. Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning are as described on pages 5 and 6 under the Existing Setting section of the project Mitigated Negative Declaration and in the Design Review Committee Staff Report. Generally, the site is surrounded by Office Professional and Single Family Residential zones and uses. (Attachment 1 ). Previous No previous applications or entitlements are applicable to Applications/Entitlements either of the sites. 6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City intends to replace existing Fire Station No. 1 and Fire Headquarters located at 176 S. Grand Street by the construction of a new facility at 105 S. Water Street with a support parking lot at 180 S. Water Street. Fire Station No. 1 will be approximately 16,57 4 square feet in size, plus an attached two- story Headquarters which will include approximately 11,353 square feet of space (27,927 square feet total). The two-story Headquarters building would be 30 feet eight inches in height, with its exhaust tower structure reaching a height of 33 feet three inches. The apparatus room for Fire Station No. 1 would be 24 feet in height. A total of 80 parking spaces will be provided. Parking consists of 21 staff and five visitor spaces on the Fire Station and Headquarters site and 54 staff parking spaces on the parcel located across Water Street to the west behind an automated security gate. The floor area ratio (FAR) of the fire station and headquarters site, combined with the existing contiguous water yard facilities is 0.38, which is within the 0.5 FAR limit of the Public Facilities and Institutions General Plan Land Use Designation. Fire Station No. 1 will include the following components: • Apparatus room with room for two engines, a truck, a rescue vehicle, and a battalion vehicle. The room will have three bays with shutters and three internal doors. • Exercise room • Fire station offices • Ready room to allow for the crew and staff to quickly respond to the apparatus • Restrooms • Dorm spaces PC ITEM 3 08/24/2020 • Study/library • Turn-out room to place turnout gear at the station prior to decontamination and be stored afterward • Extractor room to house commercial grade washer-extractors and dryers dedicated to cleaning Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) • Kitchen Fire Headquarters will include the following components: • Administration space for the Headquarters including offices and workstations • Training classroom • Lockers • Storage • Conference rooms The existing storage building located on the site will be retrofitted and refurbished and will provide approximately 3, 780 square feet of space to serve as Reserve Apparatus storage for the new facility. The retrofitting would include replacement of the interior slab, reskinning the building exterior with new metal panels and addition of new lighting. The retrofitted Reserve Apparatus storage facility will store additional vehicles and be utilized for disaster equipment storage. Both the main project site and the parking site will have associated lighting and 6-foot high perimeter fencing, constructed of masonry and steel tubes. The wall on the east side of the proposed staff parking lot that is located on the southeast corner of the Fire Station site will be a 7. ?-foot high concrete masonry unit wall. This will also function as a sound wall and any doors installed in the wall will be solid doors with self-closing hinges. Additionally, as a measure of sound proofing, a sound enclosure will be installed on the proposed emergency generator that is depicted in Figure 3 of the MND. The proposed project will also include necessary utility upgrades including, but not limited to, sewer, stormwater, dry utilities and solid waste management. Architecture The building is configured with an "H" shaped footprint with hollows of the "H" accommodating the apparatus room and apparatus entry and exiting to the site. The east side (Water Street-facing) of the "H" contains a single-story wing of rooms for the on-duty responder fire crew and the west side (Jameson Street-facing) contains the headquarters offices ln a two-story configuration. The architecture of the Orange Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters has been designed to reflect the Spanish Revival style found throughout the Old Towne Orange Historic District. The two-story building will have an offset massing that steps back from the street as the building increases in height. The roof will be a combination of flat parapet areas flanked by low-sloped mansards. Concrete roofing tiles, designed to simulate clay, will be used on all sloped roof areas. The west side will feature a second-story arcade element and a heavy-timber pergola to help break up the massing. Window and door openings, with charcoal gray frames, will occur symmetrically at exterior planes, at regular intervals. The exterior finish is primarily composed of a smooth, cream- colored stucco, terracotta-colored brick veneer and cast concrete panels. Decorative wrought iron details, period style lighting, and a small tower element at the main entrance PC ITEM 4 08/24/2020 will help complete the historic styling. Additional discussion of architecture and landscaping is contained in the attached April 15, 2020, Design Review Committee Staff Report (Attachment 5). Landscaping All the existing trees will be retained and protected on site, including the pine tree at the parking site. Two Ficus trees on Chapman Avenue, however, will be removed. Once constructed, the site perimeter will be landscaped with 44 trees and a variety of shrubs at appropriately regularly-spaced intervals. Trees include Magnolias at the Chapman Avenue-facing frontage, Natchez Crepe Myrtle trees facing Water and Jameson Streets, Goldenrain trees at the visitor parking lot, and Brisbane Box trees between the site and southern boundary where the Water Yard begins. Shrubs include a variety mixed with accent plantings and groundcover as specified on the landscape plan. Zone Change The General Plan Land Use Element designation for this site is Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI). The project site is currently zoned as Office Professional (0-P) and Single Family Residential (R-1-6). The Project proposes a zone change of the Fire Station and Headquarters site to Public Institution (P-1) to better reflect the existing nature of the land uses in the neighborhood and to ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan PFI Land Use Designation in accordance with State Law. The Zone Change is shown in Attachments 3 and 4. Parcel Map There are multiple parcels that exist on the site and a Tentative Parcel Map is proposed to merge all the parcels into a single parcel. A Tentative Parcel Map has not been created at this time per the specifications of the Subdivision Map Act. A Tentative Parcel Map, to be approved by the Community Development Director, will be completed and recorded as a final map with the County prior to a building permit for the project. The map shown in Attachment 2 represents the parcels requiring consolidation under the future parcel map. 7. ANALYSIS AND STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES No issues exist for this project because the design and construction has occurred under City staff oversight to meet City needs and specifications in relation to fire prevention, fire suppression, emergency response, area context, and site design. Potentially significant environmental effects have been mitigated to less than significant with the mitigation measures provided in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1862-18. Pursuant to Government Code sections 53090(a) and 53091 (a) the City is not required to comply with the strict application of its zoning ordinances. Hence the Zoning Code's height limitation of 32 feet, the tree count calculation of the Landscape Design Guidelines, and the 6-foot wall height limitation do not apply to this project. Instead, the project has been reviewed by staff and designed in a manner compatible with height, massing, architecture and landscaping that integrate with the project surroundings for the public benefit. PC ITEM 5 08/24/2020 On June 24, 2020, the City sent a combined Public Hearing and Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1862-18 to a total of 201 property owners/tenants within a 300-foot radius of the project site and 37 agencies and/or persons specifically requesting notice. A notice was published in the Orange County Register newspaper on June 25, 2020. The project site was posted in three locations with the notification on that same date. 9. ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW Mitigated Negative Declaration: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1862-18 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines (Attachment 7). The Mitigated Negative Declaration finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment, with the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures. The 30-day public review period was initiated on June 25, 2020, ending on July 25, 2020. Copies of the document were available for public review at City Hall and on. the City website. Staff received three written comment letters and a phone call during the public review period. The letters and the City's responses are included in Attachment 8. 10. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION Streamlined Multi-Disciplinary Accelerated Review Team (SMART): SMART reviewed the project on February 19, 2020 and recommended that the project proceed through the plan preparation phase with consideration given to comments received. Design Review Committee (DRC): At the time this project sought DRC review, no DRC meetings were scheduled due to the City implementing Covid-19 safety practices. The City Manager authorized the Community Development Director to review and approve City projects for Design Review. On April 22, 2020, the Community Development Director recommended that the project be approved for Design Review based on an understanding that the Department of Public Works will work with applicable City Departments to address the considerations identified in the Design Review staff report (Attachments 5 and 6). 11. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Project Plans 3. Existing Zoning 4. Proposed Zoning 5. Design Review Staff Report Dated April 15, 2020 6. Community Development Director Design Review Recommendation Letter Dated April 22, 2020 7. MND No. 1862-18 8. MND No. 1862-18 Public Comments and City Response to Comments 9. Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-20 (including Ordinance ##-20) N:\CDD\PLNG\Applications\Environmental_C!Ps\City Project- CEQA Documents\ENV 1862-18, Fire Station 1\PC\FS Not PC Report v2 Anna Mary Edits Combined.docx PC ITEM 6 Vicinity Map Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters 105 and 180 S. Water Street Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ENV 1862-18, Zone Change No. 1301-20, Design Review No. 5008-20, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 0016-20 PAL YRAAVE I I N PA MYRAAVE ti---4 3,,...,..-�� 0 u z ::lt-+-............, .. � s CITY OF ORANGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 8' Sound Wall10'-0" 10'-10" 10'-6"10'-0"10'-0"75'-3" 8'-8" 5'-0"- -- � ,-- -- u • If I ' -- - I * .- . ' � . ># • •' • - • - :liE ---,---� l � ' ,:.,, 1 .,.. • . I r � -- 1 I - . - • • • • ;.I, " • • - -, • II ., • • • ':. • • II • llJII "' I .... • ' . - - - � � - 17'-6" T.O.R. 30'-8" T.O.R. 33'-3" T.O.R. 24'-0" T.O.P. 25'-8" T.O.R. 22'-11" T.O.R. 17'-6" T.O.R. 30'-8" T.O.R. 33'-3" T.O.R. 24'-0" T.O.P. 25'-8" T.O.R. • 17'-6" T.O.R. 30'-8" T.O.R. 33'-3" T.O.R. 24'-0" T.O.P. 25'-8" T.O.R. 17'-6" T.O.R. 30'-8" T.O.R. 33'-3" T.O.R. 24'-0" T.O.P. 22'-11" T.O.R. • t t t (3) EXTERIOR PLASTER: La Habra "Oak Grain" Smooth Finish (1) CONCRETE TILE ROOF: Eagle Roofing Capistrano "Dark Terracota" (2) BRICK VENEER: Pacific Clay "USC Blend" w/ "Red Brick" Accent (4) PRECAST CONCRETE: Valori "Mocha" Light Sandblast (5) EXTERIOR TRIM: Dunn Edwards "Charcoal Sketch" DET628 (6) GLAZING: Vitro Glass "Solexia" • N89°55'30"W204.95'N6°31'37"E N6°31'37"E 243.60'N89°55'30"W231.48'N00°16'28"E 242.06'N89°55'30"W186.49'318.01'30.19'30.19'N89°55'30"WPROPOSEDHEADQUARTERSADMINSTRATION(2-STORY)PROPOSEDFIRE STATION 1RESPONSEDRIVEWAYVISITORSPARKING(5)26' WIDESLIDINGSECURITYGATESTAFFPARKING(21)REARAPRONMECHFUEL TANKAND EMER.GEN.CHAPMAN AVENUEJAMESON STREET WATER STRE E T CENTURY DRIVE26' WIDESLIDINGSECURITYGATEVISITORSPARKING(2)26' WIDESLIDINGSECURITYGATEPROPOSEDAPPARATUSSTORAGEBUILDINGENTRYPROPOSED SITE PLANSCALE: 1" = 20'-0"020'40'80'FIRE STATION 1 - HEADQUARTERSCITY OF ORANGE FIRE DEPARTMENTORANGE, CA105 SOUTH WATER STREET03/26/2020SITE AREA: ±1.24 ACTRUE NORTHPROJECT NORTHLANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN - SITE PLANSHRUBSMAGNOLIA G. 'ST. MARY' SYMBOLPLANTING LEGENDBOTANICAL NAME24" BOXCOMMON NAMESIZECARISSA SPECIESCARISSA1 GAL. / 5 GAL.TREESBRISBANE BOXGOLDENRAIN TREEKOELREUTERIA PANICULATALOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUSST. MARY SOUTHERNMAGNOLIA24" BOXNATCHEZ CRAPEMYRTLE (MULTI TRUNK)LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA xFAURIEI 'NATCHEZ'PARKING / PERIMETER / SCREEN &PINK ABELIA5 GAL.ABELIA ED. GOUCHERWAXLEAF PRIVET5 GAL.LIGUSTRUM TEXANUMFRASER PHOTINIA5 GAL.PHOTINIA X 'FRASERI'5 GAL.PRUNUS C. 'TITE N BRITE'COMPACT XYLOSMA5 GAL.XYLOSMA C. COMPACTAMOCK ORANGE5 GAL.PITTOSPORUM T.VARIEGATAINDIAN HAWTHORN5 GAL.RHAPHIOLEPIS I. 'PINKLADY'BRIGHT N TIGHTCAROLINA LAURELHEAVENLY BAMBOO5 GAL.NANDINA DOMESTICA'GULF STREAM'SILVER SHEEN KOHUHU5 GAL.PITTOSPORUMTENUFOLIUM 'SILVERSHEEN'5 GAL.PODOCARPUS M. 'CRYSTALBLUE'BLUE ICE YELLOWWOODAFRICAN LILY5 GAL.AGAPANTHUS AFRICANUSFLAX LILY5 GAL.DIANELLA T. 'YELLOWSTRIPE'5 GAL.CARISSA M. 'BOXWOODBEAUTY'YELLOW WILD IRIS5 GAL.DIETES BICOLORNEW ZEALAND FLAX5 GAL.PHORMIUM HYBRIDCARISSA BOXWOODBEAUTYACCENTINDIAN HAWTHORN5 GAL.RHAPHIOLEPIS I. SPECIESOTHER AREAGROUNDCOVER / SHRUB MASSLITTLE REV DIANELLADIANELLA 'LITTLE REV'1 GAL. / 5 GAL.FESTUCA 'ELIJAH BLUE'BLUE FESCUE1 GAL.15' BTKING PALMARCHONTOPHOENIXALEXANDRAE24" BOXJACARANDAJACARANDA MIMOSIFOLIA24" BOX24" BOXSTAR JASMINETRACHELOSPERMUMJASMINOIDES1 GAL. / 5 GAL.LITTLE REV DIANELLA5 GAL.DIANELLA 'LITTLE REV' LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING RESOURCE ANALYSISSanta Ana, CA 92701951 E Santa Ana Blvd.CORNERSTONE STUDIOS, INC.714. 973. 2200 Voice714. 973. 0203 FaxDesign Approach·The overall landscape will be designed to enhance theappearance of the building and to provide a cohesiveproject identify for the Fire Station 1 Headquarters Facility.·Our design approach will focus on sustainability, all fromthe standpoint of low water use, low energy consumptionand low maintenance.·Landscape will be designed to demonstrate waterconservation principles by using drought tolerant andnative/adaptive species appropriate to the local climates.·The proposed landscape palette will provide visual interest,color, appropriate screen and shade in addition to theirminimal maintenance requirements.·All irrigation design, equipment and standards selected tobe in compliance with City of Orange irrigationrequirements and the California AB1881 Water EfficientLandscape Ordinance and subsequent updates.·Drip irrigation will be proposed in all planting areas.CONCRETEHEADERBRISBANE BOXLOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS0 0 • 0 p • dOlS D • I I • • A -f- \ -�--- D O = • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • © 0 0 CD 0 �· L D ��- - • @ 0 r-- 10 I I I �- I I I I I I I I I I DOD '0 I 0 I STOP a I I ® I l_ I @ I -i I • I I 0 0 i--------==w� -��--= �� ' .., � � ·� • .. .- ' ' � .., �- I I I I --�- I I I I I I 1---- 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ••• ••• ••• N EB N EB N6°31'37"E 320.88'N89°55'30"WN89°55'30"W186.49'N89°36'17"W149.69'N00°03'32"W 318.01'30.19'N89°55'30"W318.01'33.00' WATER STRE E TALMOND AVENUEMAPLEWOOD STREET CENTURY DRIVE26' WIDESLIDINGSECURITYGATEVISITORSPARKING(2)26' WIDESLIDINGSECURITYGATEPROPOSEDAPPARATUSSTORAGEBUILDING1410101010PROPOSEDSTAFFPARKING STALLS(54)PROPOSED SITE PLANSCALE: 1" = 20'-0"020'40'80'FIRE STATION 1 - HEADQUARTERSCITY OF ORANGE FIRE DEPARTMENTORANGE, CA105 SOUTH WATER STREET03/26/2020SITE AREA: ±0.798 ACTRUE NORTHPROJECT NORTHLANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN - SITE PARKING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING RESOURCE ANALYSISSanta Ana, CA 92701951 E Santa Ana Blvd.CORNERSTONE STUDIOS, INC.714. 973. 2200 Voice714. 973. 0203 FaxI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ __JI I I I I L --t--� I L ' � I DOD A Cl 'D I I I I ,1 I -1@ I e • I I I I 1 I ® I ® , I - I I � 0 e I - I I I ® 0 I ! \ I • I I 0 \ 1® <. 0 I ,, • D I 0 I I I • �..,..., �,",r I I • • • • � - + • 8-, I 18i§JO A ® © - ® §, © f O @ STOP • • + • ••• ••• ••• N EB N EB PREP AREP FOR: CITY OF ORANGE EDUARDO LOPEZ SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER edl opez@cit yoforan ge. org (714) 744-5527 SCALE: 1"=100' >- J w l a: 0 w <( I- 0 z 0 a: � TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 105 SOUTH WATER STREET, ORANGE, CA N EB PREPARED BY: MSL ENGINEERING, INC. MARK S. LAMOUREUX PRESIDENT, PE, PLS mlamoureux@msleng.com (909) 305-2395 07-30-2020 MSL JN 19010C CHAPMAN AVENUE PARCEL 2 CITY WELL SITE 3,675 SQ. FT. OR 0.084 ACRES CENTURY DRIVE r- w w a: J- C/) z 0 Cl) w � <( J 59' co 0 I' N N },.. 0 0 0 I") 179.95' 269.85' 236.96' PARCEL 1 CITY FIRE STATION 60,696 SQ. FT. OR 1.393 ACRES PROPOSED STREET 59' DEDICATION 0 0 0 163.46' lO PARCEL 3 CITY WATER YARD 76,039 SQ. FT. OR 1.746 ACRES co co Cf) � ALMOND � AVENUE 19010 TentativePM 150 l..() (¥) 0 ..() l..() ,_ N D O J-- _ _)--------j : : N c-0,__ I , _1_v--1/ ! / ' v, I 1 66 j tQ (") i---�_l 5_8---l ! l,, 159 �--, � I 1 58 // / / 1 59 I l 54 j � � lMAeLEWQcio p� I I 0/ ! ,, �- � � {-�t--- l __ /3_:__,8 / //; 1 � �9 / 142 ����:: t------1 /! z' V � · f O 131 I I 120 f �! 1 I I I I i---------1 I I I I I I I l.{) I I l..() I o I I .-- I ol..() I I I I N I I N '("") ,-- r-- ,-- J I I .-�---'----........_----.J'----�------'--------" /I \ ,-- l ,-- ,-- ,-- ,- -----------------------------------------------------------� '-------------------�-L ---=----:_ __ - ----------- CHAPMAN AVE ....-- ,-- ,-- ....-- ....... ....-- o- (") 0 · - N 0 _________________________________ () ' //__________________ //- ---------------------- 0�� ..- ,,\ /( �\I // Q �c!; � 1/ I f / � c!; ;:'.: � ;:,; �....... , 1 : 105 : i ....... � ("") CV) CV) I I OP I I ....-- ....-- ,-- I I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! f : Jt.-----+---,--L--,-._L_-,--....L, I I I I 125 I I I I ! 1--! 125 R-1-6 i ! t------- I Cl) f : : 1 29 ....... (V") fer I l I I i------ o o ! 1--LLJ ! 1 45 11 ! : M (V") �------ I I I : 133 ,-- .-- I I I \ I� f 1,..------: :------------ I ,,�=-=-=�-....__�-___J_'--_- -.J __ -_-_...L __ -_-_-1 __ --1 _ I$ ,L-----,, '---- :' � ,.--------A-;----------C-ENTlJR'l II ,! r 1 -r Cl) r l 61 ("') � -o � � N I I 1 8 9 '--------------- / 0z / N O O � N C'0 I I I f (V") (") (¥') (V") (") I I ! C/)i 167 1 69 ....-- ....-- ....-- ....... ....-- , I I w1r----- / I 1' ,o::::::' / / 1 -===: 1 7 9 1 71 r-- -t-----1----+---!I I I I <(I i.r. 1 J !)'I f'i 187 l�S�� 8 � � (0 I I : I 195 � N (V") (") (¥) (¥) J----'-----L--------L---r-1---------.J I I : : ....-- ....-- ,-- =- ....-- _.::- -----------------fu ) ,,__ - ) '------------------------------------- - - ------- 0/---------------------ALMOND-AVE______________________________ ALM� o o�'\8 N ��I 211 l..()CO 0 0 0 J �g224- ! � 215 � � 22( ! � 221 22 ;/= [fill N � 234230 ! � M� P C. :, I 231 I� m :, 23 ..- � - .---..- l.{) I • � � �! :� ,--/..- LEGEND c:::J Project Site Zoning Classification 105-125 S Water St Existing= (0-P) Office Professional & (R-1-6) Single Family Residential July, 29th 2020 I I PJ 3/ I I N I I ,-- I I 159 158 I I ,--- I I I I I \ '--------------r--,, I I 150 lMAPLEWD_QD P� -.., ___ .,,,, � � -o � � I ,_..__ � 0 ,-- N 0 ,-- ,-- ,-- (Y) - ,-- ,--- ,-- ,-- ,-- - II v I I I I 'v' 166 j � (Y) 1------1 5-8------j//) J 1 59 1 54 ) �' � 148 // ;1/ 149 �,, ���,--:::: 138 // filf--/_14_1___ �-: 1---------1 1 ; � I ! a 131 1 I �I I I 120 1 <! : I I I 1---------J I I : I i I l() : l() l() (Y) 0 1, .-- 10 .-- N r, I I I v I I N )(Y) (Y) (Y) ('W / ', .-- I ....- .-- .-- .... I--......L_ _ _1.__ __ _j___.L__ __ ..L._ ..J__ ----=-�---/ ,, - _[_ l - ------ �--- ------ CHAPMAN AVE ,-- ,-- ,-- ,--- ,-- ,-- N NO 0 �� N NN ---------------------------------- ,;r-----_--.---,.--.----r----,.� I Q : � I N I I I I : II I 'f-----+--,--'--�.l._-,-.� I l 125 Ii--- _ I j 1 1 1 29 ,-- ("') i 1----------l O O : 133 � � I ,, _ o- CV) 0 ·- N - 0 8 I--,-- - e---------;;�-i------:-:-----��--�--�--,,) r �'l -o d=X::)o I I I N �,--- r,I I 105 ! O r/ I I I I I I I I I I p I I I I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I / ,_; 125 I I U)J : I I I I 0:11 : !,_LU/ 1 45 : '----------1 I I I ! � I /-------: : ----------- 1 Is L----- �--- � 1- -----------------CENTURY I I I ,::...,,. __ __,_,.,.:.::,,..1--,--'-�--r-��------1 I I '-._, -1- (/) I ' 'C , , I , , , 161 CV) � --0 � � N I I 189 '--------------- l z I N o O .-- N M I I l O l - (Y) (V) M M (V) I I ! Cl)i 167 1 69 .-- .-- .-- .-- .-- I I : WJ 1 79 1 7·-,-- I I : �: 1-----1----4--- , I I <(I � HJ ;!'I 'Ii'[ 187 W.\p- 8 � � M 1 1 1/ : 195 � N � CV) � � J.....-.l.----L _ __J_ __ --r-'-------' I ( : : .--- .--- .-- - t------------------t-- ) ,, ) \._ _ Cl) ALM( ----------------, Cl,,.�---------------------�lvt()�()-�\[f=. - 0 0 �'\\ 8/ - N � � : 211 co ..-NM O O O O i LI) gg�, � �g 224 - i � 215 � � o 22( / cit I /� [fill � .-- 234 I <{ 221 22 ...- 0 _ N � I� ('1)...- D 8 230 [ f 231 23� � m 1- l{) ....- ,--- Lt") I I L..{ ) ,-- ...- � "St"�! I.,.._ LEGEND c::J Project Site Zoning Classification 105-125 S Water St Proposed= (P-1) Public Institution July, 29th 2020 AGENDA ITEM DESIGN REVIEW Apri I 15, 2020 TO: THRU: FROM: William R. Crouch, AICP, AIA, NCARB, LEED {AP), Community Development Director Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner 1. SUBJECT Design Review No. 5008-20, Fire Station No. 1, 105 and 180 S. Water Street 2. SUMMARY The City of Orange is proposing a new 16,57 4 square foot Fire Station No. 1 building, an attached 11,353 square foot Fire Headquarters office, an associated parking lot across the street at 180 S. Water Street, and to utilize an exising 3, 780 on-site building, currently used by the Water Division, for reserve apparatus. 3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applicant: City of Orange Owner: City of Orange Property Location: 105 and 180 S. Water Street General Plan Designation: Public Facilities Max. 0.5 FAR and Institutions Max 2.0 FAR (PFI) and Low Density Residential 2-6 du/ac (LOR) Zoning Classification: Office Professional (0-P) and Single Family Residential 6,000 sq. ft. (R-1-6) Existing Development: Vacant land and an existing 3, 780 on-site building, currently used by the Water Division Associated Application: Zone Change No. 1301-20 and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1862-18 Previous DRC Project Review: None 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City will be constructing a new Fire Station No. 1 and headquarters administration building at 105 S. Water Street. Combined, the total building area is 27,927 square feet. The project also includes the construction of a parking lot at 180 S. Water Street and the DRCITEM 1 repurposing of an existing 3, 780 square foot storage building currently used by the Water Division for the storage of Fire Department apparatus. Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters Building -105 S. Water Street The building is configured with a "H" shaped footprint with hollows of the "H" accommodating the Apparatus room and apparatus entry and exiting to the site. The east side (Water Street-facing) of the "H" contains a single-story wing of rooms for the on duty responder fire crew and the west side (Jameson Street-facing) contains the headquarters offices in a two-story configuration. The response driveway for the apparatus exits north onto Chapman Avenue and the return driveway, visitor parking, and staff parking lot is behind the building to the south. The building provides undulation, consistent hip roof usage with a flat roof for the apparatus bay, stepbacks for second story features, coherently alternating colors and materials, and architectural details such as: • Grooved stucco walls • Red accordion apparatus bay doors • Brick veneer facade with horizontal grooves on the apparatus bay building and tower entry feature • Concrete Spanish tile-style roofing material • Charcoal-colored window and door trim • Cornice treatment over the flat roof of the apparatus bay section • Mildly arching stone-like veneer over apparatus bays • Ample window placement in appropriately regularly-spaced configuration • Faux-window or vent accents placed in voids in the wall planes The parking lot south of Fire Station No. 1 contains 5 visitor parking spaces outside of a security gate and 21 staff parking spaces inside the gated parking area. The gate type is unspecified. Inside the staff parking area is an enclosure for a generator and fuel tank and another enclosure for mechanical equipment. The enclosure type is unspecified. The site perimeter is landscaped with trees and shrubs at appropriately regularly-spaced intervals. Trees include Magnolias at the Chapman Avenue-facing frontage, Goldenrain trees facing Water and Jameson Streets, and Brisbane Box trees between the site and southern boundary where the water yard begins. Shrubs include a variety mixed with accent plantings and groundcover as specified on the landscape plan. Site lighting and photometrics are not available at this design stage. Parking Lot - 180 S. Water Street The parking lot contains 54 staff parking spaces behind a fenced perimeter with a sliding access gate onto Water Street. Two guest parking spaces are located outside the gate. A second sliding gate is provided to the contiguous but undeveloped City property to the west that is not being developed as part of this project. The fence and gate type is unspecified. The parking lot perimeter and islands within it are landscaped with trees and shrubs at appropriate regularly-spaced intervals and with the same types as planted for the Fire Station No. 1 building. The exception being that Jacaranda trees will be planted DRCITEM 2 4/15/2020 within the parking lot. Parking lot lighting and photometrics are not available at this design stage. Storage Building The existing storage building south of Fire Station No.1 is sheet metal-clad with roll up doors facing Water Street. The building is proposed to be repurposed for use in storing Fire Department apparatus. It is anticipated that the building will be structurally reinforced, re-clad with sheet metal, and fitted with new automatic bay doors. The sheet metal, doors, and color of the building is not yet decided at this time. 5. EXISTING SITE The sites are vacant and unimproved except for an existing block wall at property line facing Chapman Avenue, temporary perimiter chain-link along the property lines facing Jameson and Water Streets, and the metal storage building. 6. EXISTING AREA CONTEXT The area is the eastern gateway to Old Towne but is not in the Historic Overlay district. The surroundings are as follows: Zoning Surrounding Use North Office Professional (0-P) East Chapman Avenue and single-story office buildings and residences South Office Professional (0-P) and South Jameson Street and single-story Single Family Residential (R-1-6) residences, some which may be eligible for future consideration as an Individually Significant Historic Building East Public Institution (P-1) City of Orange Water Division Yard with a building which may be eligible for future consideration as an Individually Significant Historic Building West Office Professional (0-P and, South Water Street and the proposed Single Family Residential (R-1-6) parking lot and a two-story office building. 7. ANALYSIS AND STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES Staff thinks that the overall design approach is appropriate for the site and surrounding context, and that the design element provides for building articulation and materials that reference historic residential forms and materials along Chapman. The massing of the project is also sensitive to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The project continues to have opportunities for design enhancement and refinement at this phase. Continued coordination by Public Works with the Community Development department is recommended for the following project components: 1. Details on perimeter fencing should be provided for review. Tube steel fencing matching the fencing at the Water Yard is recommended. 2. A lighting configuration plan and photometric plan should be provided for review to verify needs of site security and prevention of off-site intensity and glare. DRCITEM 3 4/15/2020 3. Details of the generator and mechanical equipment enclosure should be provided to show the height, enclosure material, and nature of the equipment inside. 4. The first horizontal joint shown upward from the base of Fire Station No. 1 should implement a differing paint color as was designed on the Main Library. Physical paint samples should be provided for the whole of the building. 5. The brick veneer and roofing material for the Fire Station No. 1 as shown on the plan exhibits have differing reddish hues. Physical material samples with hue- matching characteristics should be provided for acceptance by the Community Development Department prior to material purchase. 6. The use of Jacaranda trees in the parking area could result in sticky flower deposits on staff and visitor vehicles. The selection of an alternate tree and the review of the landscape and irrigation plans, as they are refined, should be coordinated with the City's Senior Landscape Coordinator. 7. As plans develop, the metal siding, doors, and paint color for the repurposed storage building should be reviewed by the Community Development Department. 8. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION Streamlined Multi-Disciplined Accelerated Review Team (SMART) review occurred on February 19, 2020, and comments were transmitted to the project manager. The City is supportive of the project as it is adaptively refined to reach final plan development. No further SMART review will occur. 9. PUBLIC NOTICE No public notice is required for Design Review. 10. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1862-18 is being prepared for the project. 11. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUIRED FINDINGS The courts define a "Finding" as a conclusion which describes the method of analysis decision makers utilize to make the final decision. A decision making body "makes a Finding," or draws a conclusion, through identifying evidence in the record (i.e., testimony, reports, environmental documents, etc.) and should not contain unsupported statements. The statements which support the Findings bridge the gap between the raw data and the ultimate decision, thereby showing the rational decision making process that took place. The "Findings" are, in essence, the ultimate conclusions which must be reached in order to approve ( or recommend approval of) a project. The same holds true if denying a project; the decision making body must detail why it cannot make the Findings. Findings for DRC applications come from three sources: • The Orange Municipal Code (OMC) • The Infill Residential Design Guidelines • The Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old Towne ( commonly referred to the Old Towne Design Standards or OTDS) • The Orange Eichler Design Standards The Findings are applied as appropriate to each project. Based on the following Finding and statement in support of such Finding, staff recommends the DRC approve the focused project refinement subject to recommended conditions. DRCITEM 4 4/15/2020 • The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards, and their required findings (OMC 17.10.07.F.3). The project is respectfu I of the area community aesthetics and sensitive to the gateway corridor to Old Towne in that it utilizes architectural elements appropriate to a fire station and headquarters office. Several of the building materials are characteristic of corridor buildings including the use of plaster walls, brick facade, hip roof forms, and architectural detailing. The height of the building is minimized to that needed to support apparatus bays and crew occupancy, and office needs. The second story component is stepped back from the first story level and a public entry point is focused under a tower feature. The building provides architectural interest via indentations in architectural plane. Architectural elements are alternated and intertwined. Windows are regularly-spaced. Landscaping is provided around the perimeter of the sites and includes an adequate setback with trees that soften views to the building and parking lots. The building is sited between three streets which further reduces any impacts of mass to adjacent properties. Repurposing of the existing storage building will ensure that no greater visual mass will occur than exists for that building now and planned improvements would enhance the appearance. The issues identified in the staff report will be resolved through a cooperative working relationship among the Public Works Department and applicable City Departments. There is no specific plan or applicable design standards applicable to this property. 12. CONDITIONS The City, as a regulating authority, does not seek to condition its own projects. However, the seven issue items listed within this staff report are the considerations upon which this project is evaluated by the Community Development Department. Pub1ic Works staff has agreed the issues should be addressed to improve the project and meet the mutual goal of all City Departments to further project completion with appropriate design. 13. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity map 2. Project Plans N:\CDD\PLNG\Applications\Environmental_CIPs\City Project - CEQA Documents\ENV 1862-18, Fire Station 1\DRC\DRC Staff Report 4-15-20.docx DRCITEM 5 4/15/2020 CITY OF ORANGE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT www.cityoforange.org ADMINISTRATION (714) 7 44-7240 Fax: (714) 744-7222 April22,2020 PLANNING DIVISION (714) 744-7220 Fax: (714) 744-7222 BUILDING DIVISION (714) 744-7200 Fax: (714) 744-7245 CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (714) 744-7244 Fax: (714) 744-7245 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL City of Orange Eduardo Lopez, P.E., T.E., Senior Civil Engineer 3 00 E. Chapman Ave Orange, CA 92866 elopez@cityoforange.org RE: Design Review No. 5008-20- Fire Station No. 1, 105 and 180 S. Water Street Dear Mr. Lopez: The project schedule for the City Fire Station No. 1 project necessitates a Design Review Committee (DRC) meeting in April. However, no DRC meetings are scheduled do to the City implementing Covid-19 safety practices. The City Manager authorized me, as the Community Development Director, to approve City projects until such time that Design Review Committee (DRC) Meetings can be conducted. Pursuant to the project description and findings in the attached DRC Staff Report, dated April 15, 2020, I have considered and administratively approved Fire Station No. 1 based on an understanding that the Department of Public Works will work with applicable City Departments to address the issues identified in the staff report and as reiterated below. In making such a determination, I considered the findings as required in OMC Section 17.10.070.G. This approval is based on an understanding that the following issues will be resolved as project design is refined: 1. Details on perimeter fencing should be provided for review. Tube steel fencing matching the fencing at the Water Yard is recommended. 2. A lighting configuration plan and photometric plan should be provided for review to verify needs of site security and prevention of off-site intensity and glare. 3. Details of the generator and mechanical equipment enclosure should be provided to show the height, enclosure material, and nature of the equipment inside. DRC No. 5008-20 Fire Station No. 1, 105 and 180 S. Water Street Page2 4. The first horizontal joint shown upward from the base of Fire Station No. 1 should implement a differing paint color as was designed on the Main Library. Physical paint samples should be provided for the whole of the building. 5. The brick veneer and roofing material for the Fire Station No. 1 as shown on the plan exhibits have differing reddish hues. Physical material samples with hue-matching characteristics should be provided for acceptance by the Community Development Department prior to material purchase. 6. The use of Jacaranda trees in the parking area could result in sticky flower deposits on staff and visitor vehicles. The selection of an alternate tree and the review of the landscape and irrigation plans, as they are refined, should be coordinated with the City's Senior Landscape Coordinator. 7. As plans develop, the metal siding, doors, and paint color for the repurposed storage building should be reviewed by the Community Development Department. If you have any questions, please contact Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner at (714) 744-7243 or by email at cortlieb@cityoforange.org. Sincerely, JP William R. Crouch, AICP, AIA, NCARB, LEED (AP) Community Development Director Attaclnnents: DRC Staff Report, dated April 15, 2020 N:\CDD\PLNG\Applications\Enviromnental_CIPs\City Project - CEQA Documents\ENV 1862-18, Fire Station 1\DRC\CDD Determination Letter FS2.docx ORANGE FIRE STATION NO. 1 & HEADQUARTERS PROJECT ORANGE, CA FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1862-18 Lead Agency: City of Orange Community Development Department • Planning Division 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866-1591 (714) 744 7220 (714) 744 7222 (Fax) www.cityoforange.org Prepared by: CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 750 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Date: August 2020 �Ill� -:,: "''sc CHAMBERS �II� GROUP 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 REVISIONS TO INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THE DRAFT IS/MND........................ 6 3.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS................................................................................................. 8 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN ................................................. 21 5.0 FINAL INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ................... 28 EXISTING SETTING .................................................................................................................. 28 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................... 29 REQUIRED AGENCY PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND COORDINATION: .......................... 40 SCHEDULED PUBLIC MEETINGS OR HEARINGS: ............................................................. 40 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ............................................... 41 1. AESTHETICS........................................................................................................................... 43 2. AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES .......................................................................... 46 3. AIR QUALITY ......................................................................................................................... 48 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 63 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 66 6. ENERGY .................................................................................................................................. 69 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ......................................................................................................... 74 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ......................................................................................... 79 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................................................... 82 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY............................................................................ 85 11. LAND USE/PLANNING ....................................................................................................... 91 12. MINERAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................... 92 13. NOISE ..................................................................................................................................... 93 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................................................................................... 104 15. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................................ 105 16. RECREATION ..................................................................................................................... 107 17. TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................................................... 108 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................. 111 19. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... 113 20. WILDFIRE ........................................................................................................................... 116 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .............................................................. 118 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 120 PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ......................................................................... 122 Figures Figure 1: Project Vicinity.............................................................................................................. 34 Figure 2: Project Location ............................................................................................................ 35 Figure 3: Project Site Plan ............................................................................................................ 36 Figure 4: Parking Lot Plan ............................................................................................................ 37 Figure 5: Elevation Drawings ....................................................................................................... 38 Figure 6: Elevation Drawings (part 2) .......................................................................................... 39 3 Tables Table 1: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ....................................................................... 49 Table 2: Local Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary ............................................................... 50 Table 3: Construction-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions......................................... 53 Table 4: Construction-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions .............................................. 54 Table 5: Operational Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions ........................................................ 55 Table 6: Project’s Contribution to Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ................... 56 Table 7: Operations-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions ................................................. 58 Table 8: Proposed Project Compliance with City General Plan Energy Policies ......................... 72 Table 9: Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions ...................................................... 80 Table 10: Existing (Ambient) Noise Level Measurements ........................................................... 93 Table 11: City of Orange Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Transportation Sources ....... 94 Table 12: City of Orange Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Stationary Sources .............. 95 Table 13: City of Orange Municipal Code Exterior Noise Standards .......................................... 97 Table 14: Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Homes ........................................................ 99 Table 15: Operational Noise Levels at the Nearest Homes to the Main Project site .................. 101 Appendices Appendix A Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis Appendix B Geotechnical Investigation Appendix C Water Quality Management Plan Appendix D Noise Impact Analysis 4 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1862-18 Project Title: Orange Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters Project Reference Application Numbers: MND No. ENV 1862-18 Zone Change No. 1301-20 Tentative Parcel Map No. 0016-20 Lead Agency: City of Orange 300 E. Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866 Contact Person and Telephone No.: Eduardo Lopez, P.E., T.E., Senior Civil Engineer (714) 744-5527 Project Proponent and Address: Orange City Fire Department 176 S. Grand Street Orange, CA 92866 Contact Person and Telephone No.: Robert Stefano Deputy Chief of Operations Orange City Fire 949.533.2049 Project Location: The main Project site is located at 105 S. Water Street at the intersection of Chapman Avenue and Water Street. The associated parking lot is sited diagonally across the southwestern corner of the Project site, across Water Street (parking site). Existing General Plan Designation: Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI) Existing Zoning Classification: Office Professional (O-P) and Single Family Residential (R-1-6) 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Orange’s current Fire Headquarters, located at 176 S. Grand Street Orange, CA 92866, serves as both Fire Headquarters and Fire Station No. 1, and provides service to the southern portion of the City bounded by Struck Avenue on the north, southerly City limits on the south, Batavia Avenue on the west and State Route 55 Freeway on the east. This Fire Headquarters and Fire Station No. 1 building was originally constructed in 1969, and over the years the fire department’s staff has outgrown the current Fire Headquarters. The City of Orange is proposing a new Fire Station No. 1, Fire Headquarters, and associated parking lot to replace the current aging and undersized station (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project site is comprised of both the main Project site housing the new fire station and headquarters, as well as the site of the proposed parking lot across Water Street. The new building for the Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters will be sited on a City-owned lot at 105 S. Water Street (main Project site), which is located approximately 0.6 mile east from its existing location. The new building would be larger than the current facility including larger facilities for the Fire Station No. 1 operations, as well as larger administration and training areas for the Fire Headquarters. The associated parking lot is sited diagonally across the southwestern corner of the Project site, across Water Street (parking site). The City has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigaiton Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to address and disclose the potential environmental effects of project implementation in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), Section 15000 et seq. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, this IS/MND includes a description of the Proposed Project, an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts, and findings from the environmental review. This IS/MND evaluates the potential environmental impacts that may result from implemenation of the Proposed Project. The City is the Lead Agency under CEQA, and its City Council is responsible for the adoption of the environmental analysis and approval of the Project. On June 25, 2020 the City distributed the Draft IS/MND for the Orange County Fire Station Project to public agencies and the general public. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21091 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, a 30-day public review period for the Draft IS/MND was provided from June 25, 2020 to July 27, 2020. The Draft IS/MND and supporting attachments were available for review by the general public at the following locations: • Orange City Hall, Offices of the Cirt Clerk and Community Development Department, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92866 • City of Orange, Community Development Department, Planning Division Website: https://www.cityoforange.org/292/Project-NoticesRelated-Environmental-Doc 2.0 REVISIONS TO INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THE DRAFT IS/MND Introduction On June 25, 2020, the City of Orange circulated the Draft IS/MND (State Clearinghouse No. 2020060566) for a 30-day public review period to responsible and trustee agencies and interested parties. Since issuance of the Draft IS/MND, the City has submitted modifications to the Proposed Project. Potential impacts resulting from modifications to the Project are discussed herein. As presented within this section, these revisions represent modifications to the previously analyzed project description. The revisions do not change the conclusions presented in the Draft IS/MND and the revisions would not create any new significant impacts or the need for additional mitigation. Modifications to the Previously Analyzed Project Based on questions and comments received from nearby residents, the Project Description has been revised as follows: Staff and visitor vehicles would access the Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters site off of Water Street. The Project facility would also have a gated staff parking and unsecured visitor parking accessible from Water Street. The parking site, located across Water Street from the main Project site, would have a secured entrance on Water Street, facing the Proposed Project site. In addition, a secured ingress/egress point would be provided on the western edge of the parking lot. The western ingress/egress access will feed into the empty lot to the west of the Parking site. There are currently no plans for this empty lot; it is currently leased to store car dealership vehicles; this may or may not continue in the future. The staff and visitors, using the associated parking lot, would make a pedestrian crossing over Water Street to gain access to the Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters site. However, due to the residential and business nature of the land uses along Water Street, a vehicular speed limit of 25 mph and the street not being a busy thoroughfare, the Project does not assume a requirement for a signaled crosswalk. To provide additional details on the construction activities, the following revision has been made: Construction Activities: Once the Proposed Project has been approved by the City, Project construction activities could begin in January 2021 and take approximately 19 months. The site is currently graded with little to no vegetation on site. The construction staging area will be located in the parking lot site. In Section 4 of the Environmental Checklist, mitigation measure Bio-1 has been revised as follows based on a comment received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW): 7 Bio-1: Nesting Birds. If Project clearing and construction must occur during the avian nesting season (February 1 to September 1), a survey for active nests must be conducted by a qualified biologist one to two weeks no more than three days prior to the activities to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the Project site. If no active nests are discovered or identified, no further mitigation is required. In the event that active nests are discovered on site, a suitable buffer determined by the qualified biologist (e.g., 30 to 50 feet for passerines) should be established around such active nests. Buffers typically have a minimum width of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors). No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Limits of construction to avoid a nest site shall be established in the field by a qualified biologist with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be instructed regarding the ecological sensitivity of the fenced area. The results of the survey shall be documented and filed with the Community Development Director within five days after the survey. Impacts Resulting from Modifications to the Project No new impacts would result from the modifications to the MND noted above. 3.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The following is a list of the persons, firms, or agencies that submitted comments on the Draft IS/MND during the public review period: Comment Letter No. Individual, Organization, Agency Letter Dated 1 Mary Anne Skorpanich July 3, 2020 2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife July 15, 2020 3 Mike Aims (phone call) July 1, 2020 4 City of Irvine July 23, 2020 5 Daniel Slater July 30, 2020 The number designations in the responses are correlated to the bracketed and identified portions of the comment letter. From:Eduardo LopezTo:Meghan GibsonSubject:Fwd: Questions on NOI for fire stationDate:Monday, July 6, 2020 8:38:14 AMFyi Eduardo Lopez, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer City of Orange Public Works Engineering Sent from my smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: mary anne skorpanich <skorpanich@icloud.com> Date: 7/3/20 1:17 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Eduardo Lopez <edlopez@cityoforange.org> Subject: Questions on NOI for fire station Hello Mr. Lopez, on pages 15-16 of the MND there are four elevations shown but only two are labeled. Could you please confirm that page 15 shows the north and east elevations and page 16 the south and west elevations? What is the age of the storage building on the fire station-HQ site? No mention is made of what appears to be a historic building on the adjacent Water Department property. What is the age of this structure? Based on the site plan it appears that only the southwest portion of the parking lot on Water Street is part of this project, leaving the northwest portion as a parcel without ingress and egress. Is this parcel City-owned and are there any plans for this property? What is the zoning and GP designation for this property? Has the City analyzed sightlines from the proposed building to surrounding properties? Thank you, Mary Anne E-mail correspondence, along with any attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act; and as such may be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act. 1-1 1-2 1-4 1-3 Response to Comment Letter No. 1 Ms. Mary Anne Skorpanich July 3, 2020 Response to Comment 1-1: Thank you for your comment. Yes, Figure 5 is intended to show the North elevation in the top image and the East elevation in the bottom image, while Figure 6 is intended to show the South elevation in the top image and the West elevation in the bottom image. These directional notations have been added to Figure 5 and Figure 6, below. Response to Comment 1-2: The existing storage structure onsite was constructed in the early 1960’s, over 60 years ago. Since it has exhausted its lifespan the current building is intended to be retrofitted for Fire Department use. Due to the type and condition of the structure, the storage building was not considered a historic structure eligible for listing. The Proposed Project will not impact the adjacent Water District property. A review of the City of Orange General Plan Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Element found that no designated historic properties were located in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. The Water District was constructed prior to 1922, with the northerly section of the Water District being constructed in approximately 1975. Some of the Water District buildings may be eligible for designation as an inventoried structure as part of a future survey, as would other structures located in the area. However, the Proposed Project would not impact any buildings on the Water District property and the buildings are not part of a collective overlay district. Response to Comment 1-3: Of the two parking areas along Water Street south of Chapman Avenue, the northern portion is associated with the office structure on the corner of Water Street and Chapman Avenue. This lot has existing ingress and egress along Water Street as well as ingress and egress along Chapman Avenue. The portion of the site plan indicated as the site of the Parking lot for Fire Station No.1 and Headquarters will have it’s own ingress and egress along Water Street, as well as an ingress and egress area to the West. The western ingress/egress access will feed into the empty lot to the west of the Parking site. There are currently no plans for this empty lot; it is currently leased to store car dealership vehicles; this may or may not continue in the future. The property to the northwest of the Parking lot site is zoned Residential (R-1-6) and has and land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR) (2-6 DU/AC). 11 Response to Comment 1-4: The City has not specifically analyzed sightlines from the proposed building to the surrounding properties. Analysis was provided in Section 1 of the Checklist of Environmental Impact Issues that discusses Aesthetics. Although the new Fire Station No.1 and Headquarters has the potential to block views from the nearby residents and businesses across the currently vacant site, the site is proposed to be developed with a structure in substantial conformance with height limitations of the zoning district and consistent with architectural elements and roof forms of surrounding uses. The project also utilizes landscaping and perimeter walls or fences for site screening. No scenic viewpoints are located in the Project vicinity. From:Eduardo Lopez To:Meghan Gibson Cc:Kelley Needham Subject:FW: Orange Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project (SCH# 2020060566) Date:Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:06:00 PM Meghan, Please see comment below for your reference Thank you, Eduardo Lopez, P.E., T.E. Senior Civil Engineer City of Orange Public Works Engineering & Construction Management Direct: (714) 744-5527 | www.cityoforange.org From: Lane, Jessie@Wildlife <Jessie.Lane@Wildlife.ca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 3:25 PM To: Eduardo Lopez <edlopez@cityoforange.org> Cc: Turner, Jennifer@Wildlife <Jennifer.Turner@wildlife.ca.gov> Subject: Orange Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project (SCH# 2020060566) Dear Mr. Lopez, The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated June 2020, for the Orange Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project. CDFW is a Trustee Agency and a Responsible Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; §§ 15386 and 15281, respectively) and is responsible for ensuring appropriate conservation of the state's biological resources, including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species, pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code § 2050 et seq.) and other sections of the Fish and Game Code (1600 et seq.). CDFW also administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 proposed in the MND (p. 41) indicates that preconstruction nesting bird surveys will be conducted by a qualified biologist one to two weeks prior to clearing and construction activities. That timeframe is inadequate to identify nesting bird presence in the Project area because it allows the possibility for birds to locate onsite and potentially establish nests. Pre- construction surveys should be conducted as close to the time of potential disruption as possible, no more than 3 days from the start of construction. We recommend that the Mitigation Measure incorporates the following language: If Project clearing and construction must occur during the avian nesting season (February 1 to September 1), a survey for active nests must be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to the activities to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the Project site. If no active nests are discovered or identified, no further mitigation is required. In the event that active nests are discovered on site, a suitable buffer determined by the qualified biologist should be established around such active nests; Buffers typically have a minimum width of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors). No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Limits of construction to avoid a nest site shall be established in the field by a qualified biologist with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be instructed regarding the ecological sensitivity of the fenced area. The results of the survey shall be documented and filed with the Community Development Director within five days after the survey. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the MND for this project. Should you have any questions pertaining to biological resources or regarding this email, please contact CDFW for additional coordination. Thank you, Jessie Lane Environmental Scientist California Department of Fish and Wildlife South Coast Region, Habitat Conservation Planning 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 Phone (858) 636-3159 E-mail correspondence, along with any attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act; and as such may be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act. 14 Response to Comment Letter No. 2 Jessie Lane South Coast Region, Habitat Conservation Planning California Department of Fish and Wildlife July 15, 2020 Response to Comment 2-1: Thank you for providing your comments on the MND. We have revised mitigation measure Bio- 1 per your request, as is noted in Section 2.0. As suggested, the mitigation measure has been revised to state: Bio-1: Nesting Birds. If Project clearing and construction must occur during the avian nesting season (February 1 to September 1), a survey for active nests must be conducted by a qualified biologist one to two weeks no more than three days prior to the activities to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the Project site. If no active nests are discovered or identified, no further mitigation is required. In the event that active nests are discovered on site, a suitable buffer determined by the qualified biologist (e.g., 30 to 50 feet for passerines) should be established around such active nests. Buffers typically have a minimum width of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors). No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Limits of construction to avoid a nest site shall be established in the field by a qualified biologist with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be instructed regarding the ecological sensitivity of the fenced area. The results of the survey shall be documented and filed with the Community Development Director within five days after the survey. Comment #3 -Mike Aims (via phone) Comment 3-1: Eduardo Lopez received a phone call from Mike Aims with a question regarding the Proposed Project. Mike Aims, a nearby resident asked what was to be done with the portion of the site to the west of the proposed parking lot abutting the property line. Response to Comment Letter No. 3 Response to Comment 3-1: Thank you for providing your comments on the MND. As Eduardo noted in the phone conversation, the Proposed Project would not improve or alter the portion of the lot to the west of the proposed parking lot, along the property line. There are currently no plans for this empty lot; it is currently leased to store car dealership vehicles; this may or may not continue in the future. cityofirvine.org City of Irvine, 1 Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 19575, Irvine, California 92623-9575 949-724-6000 July 20, 2020 Mr. Eduardo Lopez City of Orange Public Works Department 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866 Subject: Interagency Review -- Zone Change 1301-20, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1862-18, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 0016-20 for Orange Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters Project Dear Mr. Lopez: The City of Irvine is in receipt of a Zone Change, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and a Tentative Parcel Map for Orange Fire Station No. 1. The project site is located at 105 S. Water Street in the City of Orange. The project consists of constructing a new 16,574 square foot fire station and 11,353 square foot, two-story, headquarters building. To accomplish this, the project proposes a zone change to amend the zoning designation from Office Professional (O-P) and Single Family Res. 6,000 (R-1-6) to Public Institution (P-I) and a tentative parcel map to merge lots into one single property. City staff has completed its review and has no comments. If you have any questions, you may contact me at 949-724-6364 or at jequina@cityofirvine.org. Sincerely, Justin Equina Associate Planner cc: Kerwin Lau, Manager of Planning Services Marika Poynter, Principal Planner Response to Comment Letter No. 4 Justin Equina City of Irvine July 23, 2020 Response to Comment 4-1: Thank you for your comment. This comment outlines the Proposed Project details. Response to Comment 4-2: The City of Orange notes that the City of Irvine does not have any comments. No further response is required. Dear Eduardo, Thanks so much for your time today catching me up on this project. I’m excited about this project and have been looking forward to it for a long time. I very much like the design elements and scale, and I feel it will be a good fit for the neighborhood. I only have 1 suggestion that I feel will make it even more compatible with the single family nature of the east side of the main fire station site (Jameson Street, where I have owned a property for over 35 years and actually lived there for several years). When the Water Department landscaped the southern half of the block that faces Jameson St., they wisely noted that there was no need for a sidewalk and fully landscaped the space with drought tolerant plants. It has looked nice for many years! Upon reviewing the Orange Fire Station plans, I see that there is only a wall abutting the east side of the project (no pedestrian ingress or egress), with all pedestrian traffic oriented toward Water Street. It would be nice to continue the same or similar landscaping along the project area with NO SIDEWALK. It would create a better and “softer” look. I also feel that placing more landscaping and less access to the wall will be a deterrent for graffiti. Thanks again, Eduardo. Respectfully, Dan Slater Orange Realty, Inc. E-mail correspondence, along with any attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act; and as such may be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act. From: Daniel Slater <danslater@danslater.com> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 4:33 PM To: Eduardo Lopez <edlopez@cityoforange.org> Subject: Orange Fire Station #1 Response to Comment Letter No. 5 Dan Slater July 30, 2020 Response to Comment 5-1: Thank you for submitting your comment letter for this Project. Response to Comment 5-2: This comment notes support for the Project, we appreciate the input. Response to Comment 5-3: Thank you for your comments on the design of the Project. The Proposed Project would keep the sidewalk as shown on the plans, as it is an existing feature. The Project will include replacing the entire stretch of sidewalk along the easterly property line. Per the General Plan, under Circulation and Mobility, Goal 1.0, Policy 1.6 states, “Maintain and repair roadways and sidewalks as necessary to improve circulation and safety.” The existing sidewalk is needed for circulation and safety at the proposed facility. Individuals will be able to park on that side of Jameson Street to access the station and the sidewalk is needed for part of the egress for the building. The plans include 5 feet of landscaping from the curb face to the sidewalk, then 5 feet of sidewalk, followed by 10 feet of landscaping to the building face or wall. 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring plan. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring plan must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist, has been prepared for the proposed Orange Fire Station Project. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist is intended to provide verification that all applicable mitigation measures relative to significant environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include: 1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation measure; and 3) retention of records in the City’s Orange Fire Station No. 1 Project file. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) delineates responsibilities for monitoring the Project, but also allows the City flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. This includes the review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition, unless otherwise noted in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist (Table 1). If an adopted mitigation measure is not being properly implemented, the designated monitoring personnel shall require corrective actions to ensure adequate implementation. Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented, and generally involves the following steps: • The City distributes reporting forms to the appropriate entities for verification of compliance. • Departments/agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the Initial Study/Mitigated • Negative Declaration, which provides general background information on the reasons for including specified mitigation measures. • Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to the City as appropriate. • Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures. • Responsible parties provide the City with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring compliance may be documented through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review. • The City prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an annual report summarizing all project mitigation monitoring efforts. • Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or conditions of permits/approvals. 22 Minor changes to the MMRP, if required, would be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City. Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities, plan redesign to make any appropriate improvements, and/or modification, substitution or deletion of mitigation measures subject to conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. No change will be permitted unless the MMRP continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. TABLE 1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame and Responsible Party for Implementation Time Frame and Responsible Party for Monitoring Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Biological Resources BIO- 1 Nesting Birds. If Project clearing and construction must occur during the avian nesting season (February 1 to September 1), a survey for active nests must be conducted by a qualified biologist one to two weeks no more than three days prior to the activities to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the Project site. If no active nests are discovered or identified, no further mitigation is required. In the event that active nests are discovered on site, a suitable buffer determined by the qualified biologist (e.g., 30 to 50 feet for passerines) should be established around such active nests. Buffers typically have a minimum width of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors). No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Limits of construction to avoid a nest site shall be established in the field by a qualified biologist with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be instructed regarding the ecological sensitivity of the fenced area. The results of the survey shall be documented and filed with the Community Development Director within five days after the survey Prior to construction City of Orange Prior to construction City of Orange Cultural Resources CUL -1 In the event a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during earthwork activities, as determined During construction During construction 24 No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame and Responsible Party for Implementation Time Frame and Responsible Party for Monitoring Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks by the foreperson, qualified Native American Monitor, or any City official, all subsurface construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease and workers shall avoid altering the materials until a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology has evaluated the situation. The City of Orange Public Works Department shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in the construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any resources found during construction activities shall expeditiously be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, glass, ceramics, wood, or shell artifacts, or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined to be significant under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, the qualified archaeologist shall expeditiously prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The archaeologist shall also expeditiously perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive report complete with methods, results, and recommendations, and provide for the permanent curation or repatriation of the recovered resources in cooperation with the designated most likely descendant as needed. The report shall be submitted to City of Orange City of Orange 25 No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame and Responsible Party for Implementation Time Frame and Responsible Party for Monitoring Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks the City of Orange Community Development Department, the South Central Coastal Information Center, and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), if required. Geology & Soils GEO -1 In the event a previously unrecorded paleontological deposit is encountered during construction; all activity shall cease in the vicinity of the find and redirected elsewhere, and the City shall be immediately informed of the discovery. A paleontologist shall be retained by the City to make recommendations on the treatment of the deposits. The recommendations shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15126.4. The City shall be consulted on the treatment of the deposits. The City shall follow all recommendations made by the paleontologist. The deposits shall not be disturbed or removed until the appropriate treatment has be recommended by the paleontologist and approved by the City. No construction activity in the vicinity of the find, the boundary of which shall be determined by the paleontologist, may resume until the recommendations for treatment of the deposits have been implemented. If applicable, the final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures shall be submitted to the Community Development Department when finalized. The final written report shall be submitted to the appropriate regional paleontological Information Center within three months after work has been completed. 26 No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame and Responsible Party for Implementation Time Frame and Responsible Party for Monitoring Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Tribal Cultural Resources TCR- 1 Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the project site, the project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation – the tribe that consulted on this project pursuant to Assembly Bill A52 (the “Tribe” or the “Consulting Tribe”). The monitor will have experience working with a qualified archaeologist, as defined in the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, and/or education or professional training in a related field, such as anthropology, archaeology or ethnology. A copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Orange Community Development Department prior to the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The on-site monitoring shall commence when ground-disturbing activities begin and shall end when the project site ground-disturbing activities are completed, or when the Native American Monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources, whichever occurs first. Ground disturbing activities are defined as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The Tribal Monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, During construction City of Orange During construction City of Orange 27 No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame and Responsible Party for Implementation Time Frame and Responsible Party for Monitoring Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be assessed. All Tribal Cultural Resources unearthed by project activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor approved by the Consulting Tribe. If the resources are determined to be Native American in origin, the Consulting Tribe will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized at the Project Site, all ground disturbance shall immediately cease, and the county coroner shall be notified per Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Work may continue on other parts of the Project Site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f). If the resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor to be a non-Native American resource the applicant would be required to implement MM CUL-1. 5.0 FINAL INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION EXISTING SETTING Project Site The Project site is comprised of two areas, the Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters site, and the Water Street-separated parking lot area, as follows: Fire Station No. 1 Headquarters The site of the new Orange Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters (or main Project site), approximately 1.52 acres in area, is located on 105 S. Water Street, approximately 417 feet east of the boundary of the Old Towne Orange Historic District (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The site of the parking lot (parking site) for the Fire Department is located diagonally across the southwest corner of the site, across Water Street. The main Project site is bordered by East Chapman Avenue on the north, South Jameson Street on the east, the City of Orange Department of Water on the south and South Water Street on the west. Chapman Avenue, lined by historic buildings, is considered the gateway to the Old Towne Historic District and leads to the Plaza. Currently, the main Project site is unpaved, graded with little to no vegetation, and is vacant except for an existing storage building onsite. There are multiple parcels that occur on the site and a Tenative Parcel Map is proposed to merge all the parcels into a single parcel. The General Plan Land Use Element designation for this site is Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI). The Project site is zoned as Office Professional (O-P) and Single Family Residential (R-1-6). The Project proposes a zone change of the site to Public Institution (P-I) to better reflect the existing nature of the land uses in the neighborhood and to ensure that the Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan. Surrounding land uses and zoning of nearby properties are as follows: • North: The northern vicinity to the main Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Office Professional (NOP) (Maximum FAR 0.5) and is zoned Office Professional (O-P). The existing uses are one to two-story office buildings, including therapy centers, escrow service offices, pharmacies and assisted living facilities. • South: The southern vicinity to the main Project site has General Plan land use designations of Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI) (Maximum FAR 0.5 and 2.0 respectively) and Low Medium Residential (LMDR) (6-15 DU/AC). The area is zoned Public Institution (P-I) and Single Family Residential (R-1-6). The existing uses include one-story single-family residential buildings, parking lots and the City of Orange Water Division. • East: The eastern vicinity to the main Project site has General Plan land use designations of Neighborhood Office Professional (NOP) (Maximum FAR 0.5) and Low Density Residential (LDR) (2-6 DU/AC). The area is zoned Office Professional (O-P) and Single Family Residential (R-1-6). The existing uses are one-story single-family residential buildings. • West: The western vicinity to the main Project site has General Plan land use designations of Neighborhood Office Professional (NOP) (Maximum FAR 0.5) and Low 29 Density Residential (LDR) (2-6 DU/AC). The area is zoned Office Professional (O-P). The existing ground uses are two-story office buildings including dental clinics. Parking Lot The site of the parking lot for the Fire Department is approximately 1.23 acres in area, located diagonally across the southwest corner of the site, across Water Street, and will include a reorganization of the existing parking lot, along with the addition of landscaped features and security gates. Currently, the parking site is a combination of asphalt paving and compacted gravel, fenced, with a few small trees and shrubs on site. The site of the proposed parking lot has a Low Density Residential (LDR) (2-6 DU/AC) General Plan land use designation and is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-6). Surrounding land uses and zoning categories are as follows: • North: The Northern vicinity to the parking site has a General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Office Professional (NOP) (Maximum FAR 0.5) and is zoned Office Professional (O-P). The existing uses are a two-story office building, housing dental offices. • South: The southern vicinity to the parking site has General Plan land use designations of Low Medium Residential (LMDR) (6-15 DU/AC). The area is zoned Residential Duplex Single-story overlay (R-2-6 A), Multiple Family Residential (R-3). The existing ground uses are one-story single-family residential buildings. • East: The eastern vicinity to the parking site has General Plan land use designations of Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI) (Maximum FAR 0.5 and 2.0 respectively). The area is zoned Public Institution (P-I). The existing ground use is the City of Orange Water Division. • West: The western vicinity to the parking site has General Plan land use designations of Low Density Residential (LDR) (2-6 DU/AC). The area is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-6). The existing ground uses are one-story single-family residences and parking lots. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Background: The Orange City Fire Department was established on December 14, 1905, at a meeting of the City's Fire and Water Committee to organize a volunteer fire department. At the present day, the Fire Department houses eight fire stations, two Battalion Chief vehicles, seven front line fire engines (also called "pumpers"), one front line fire truck (also called a "ladder truck"), one front line quintuple combination pumper (also referred to as a "quint"), one front line Urban Search and Rescue truck, four front line rescue ambulances, two front line Type 3 wildland fire engines, four reserve fire engines, one reserve fire truck, four reserve rescue ambulances, one small spill unit, one rehab unit, eight utility vehicles, eight Command Staff vehicles and nine Fire Prevention staff vehicles. The Fire Department’s responsibilities include fire suppression, expanded advanced life support and medical transportation, increased responses for hazardous materials and environmental monitoring, technical rescue operations including urban search and rescue, swift water rescue, confined space and trench rescue, disaster preparedness, public education, fire prevention and fire/arson investigation. 30 Fire Station No. 1 includes protection for the Old Towne Orange Historic District, Chapman University, and stretches of the State Route (SR) 55 and SR-22 freeways. Fire Station No. 1 serves as the Department’s Headquarters, which has offices for the Command staff, Administrative staff, and Fire Prevention staff. It also has the provisions to operate as a backup Emergency Operations Center, Regional Occupational Program’s Fire Program classroom; contains a mapping room for creating and maintaining the department’s mapping system, a uniform storage room, self-contained breathing apparatus maintenance room, arson investigation lockup, and additional rooms that are used for equipment storage, rope storage, and sewing. A portable trailer, present on site, is used as a conference room for the Fire Department. Additionally, the Orange City Fire Department’s stations, including the Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters, provide coverage for each other and county-wide when resources are unavailable, based on availability and mutual agreements, respectively. The new Fire Headquarters and Fire Station No. 1 will accommodate the above mentioned existing facilities along with an exercise room, ready room, dorm spaces, study/library, turn-out room, extractor room, kitchen, training classroom, lockers, storage, and additional conference rooms. A Non-Significant Environmental Impact Declaration form filed by the City of Orange in 1973 shows that the Project site historically housed State and County fire apparatus repair shops, warehouse, offices outfitting and storage buildings along with State Division of Forestry residences and gasoline and diesel dispensing pumps. The facility suffered destruction by fire in the late 1980s, which resulted in a hazardous material discharge (gasoline) in the site. Soil Vapor Extraction method was applied as a remedial measure to mitigate the negative impacts. Presently, the Project site has undergone hazardous material clean-up review to ensure no residual gasoline discharge is present on the site. Project Description: The Proposed Project includes Fire Station No. 1, which will be approximately 16,574 square feet in size, as well as an attached two-story Headquarters which will include approximately 11,353 square feet of space. The two-story Headquarters building would be 30 feet 8 inches in height, with its exhaust tower structure reaching a height of 33 feet 3 inches; the apparatus room of the Fire Station No. 1 would be 24 feet in height. In addition, the existing storage building located on the site will be retrofitted and refurbished and will provide approximately 3,780 square feet of space to serve as Reserve Apparatus storage for the new facility. The retrofitting would include replacement of the interior slab, reskinning the building exterior with new metal panels and addition of new lighting. The Proposed Project will include the following components for Fire Station No. 1: • Apparatus room with room for two engines, a truck, a rescue vehicle, and a battalion vehicle. The room will have three bays with shutters and three internal doors. • Exercise room • Fire station offices • Ready room to allow for the crew and staff to quickly respond to the apparatus. • Restrooms • Dorm spaces 31 • Study/library • Turn-out room to place turnout gear at the station prior to decontamination and be stored afterward • Extractor room to house commercial grade washer-extractors and dryers dedicated to cleaning Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) • Kitchen The Proposed Project will include the following components for the Fire Headquarters: • Administration space for the Headquarters including offices and workstations • Training classroom • Lockers • Storage • Conference rooms The Proposed Project will have a Reserve Apparatus storage facility to store additional vehicles and for disaster equipment storage, proposed to be housed within the retrofitted storage building. The parking lot for the Proposed Project will be located across Water Street to the west and will consist of two ungated visitor spots, two automated security gates, and approximately 54 gated staff parking stalls. Both the main Project site and the parking site would have associated lighting and 6-foot high perimeter fencing, constructed of masonry and steel tubes. The wall on the east side of the proposed staff parking lot that is located on the southeast corner of the Fire Station site will be a 7.7-foot high concrete masonry unit wall. This will also function as a sound wall and any doors installed in the wall will be solid doors with self-closing hinges. Additionally, as a measure of sound proofing, a sound enclosure will be installed on the proposed emergency generator that is depicted in Figure 3. The Proposed Project would also include necessary utility upgrades including, but not limited to, sewer, stormwater, dry utilities and solid waste management. Architecture The architecture of the Orange Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters has been designed to reflect the Spanish Revival style found throughout the Old Towne Orange Historic District (see Figure 5 and Figure 6, below). The two-story building would have an offset massing that steps back from the street as the building increases in height. The roof would be a combination of flat parapet areas flanked by low-sloped mansards. Concrete roofing tiles, designed to simulate clay, would be used on all sloped roof areas. The west side would feature a second-story arcade element and a heavy-timber pergola to help break up the massing. Window and door openings, with charcoal gray frames, would occur symmetrically at exterior planes, at regular intervals. The exterior finish is primarily composed of a smooth, cream-colored stucco, terracotta-colored brick veneer and cast concrete panels. Decorative wrought iron details, period style lighting, and a small tower element at the main entrance would help complete the historic styling. Landscaping All the existing trees would be retained and protected on site, including the pine tree at the parking site. Two Ficus trees on Chapman Avenue, however, would be removed. Once 32 constructed, the site perimeter will be landscaped with trees and shrubs at appropriately regularly-spaced intervals. Trees include Magnolias at the Chapman Avenue-facing frontage, Natchez Crape Myrtle trees facing Water and Jameson Streets, Goldenrain trees at the visitor parking lot, and Brisbane Box trees between the site and southern boundary where the water yard begins. Shrubs include a variety mixed with accent plantings and groundcover as specified on the landscape plan. Circulation and Parking The Proposed Project intends to retain the existing circulation patterns (automobile and pedestrian) and sidewalks around the site. Currently, there are no existing or planned bicycle lanes or related facilities on Chapman Avenue or Water Street. The response driveway for Fire Station No. 1 will take access from Chapman Avenue. Stop signs and emergency warning systems will be installed along Chapman Avenue and Water Street to ensure safe egress from the site. The Fire Department vehicles will return to the station via Water Street and will stage to exit directly onto Chapman Avenue via the response driveway. Pedestrian access to Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters will be located at the northeast corner of the building at the Chapman Avenue and Water Street intersection. Staff and visitor vehicles would access the Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters site off of Water Street. The Project facility would also have a gated staff parking and unsecured visitor parking accessible from Water Street. The parking site, located across Water Street from the main Project site, would have a secured entrance on Water Street, facing the Proposed Project site. In addition, a secured ingress/egress point would be provided on the western edge of the parking lot. The western ingress/egress access will feed the empty lot to the west of the Parking site. There are currently no plans for this empty lot; it is currently leased to store car dealership vehicles; this may or may not continue in the future. The staff and visitors, using the associated parking lot, would make a pedestrian crossing over Water Street to gain access to the Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters site. However, due to the residential and business nature of the land uses along Water Street, a vehicular speed limit of 25 mph and the street not being a busy thoroughfare, the Project does not assume a requirement for a signaled crosswalk. Project Design Features: Project Design Feature 1: The Project applicant shall construct a minimum 7.7-foot concrete masonry unit wall that is depicted on the proposed site plan and is located on the east side of the proposed staff parking lot that is located on the southeast corner of the Fire Station Site. Any doors installed in the wall shall be solid doors with self-closing hinges. Project Design Feature 2: The Project applicant shall install a sound enclosure on the proposed emergency generator that is depicted on the proposed site plan. The sound enclosure shall be no less effective than a Level 1 Sound Enclosure provided by Generac. 33 Project Schedule: The Proposed Project is expected to break ground in January 2021 and be completed by July 2022. Construction activities will take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except for Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday. Construction Activities: Once the Proposed Project has been approved by the City, Project construction activities could begin in January 2021 and take approximately 19 months. The site is currently graded with little to no vegetation on site. The construction staging area will be located in the parking lot site. Construction equipment to be used during construction of the Proposed Project include the following items: • Loaders • Pick-up trucks • Backhoe • Water Truck • Crane • Asphalt paver • Excavators Figure 1Fire Station 1 HQ CEQA Project Vicinity Name: 21214 PLAN Fig 1 Project Vicinity.Mx d Print Date: 6/11/2020, Au th or: pcarlos Project Location – New Fire Station No. 1 and Headqu arters Site 0 1,500 3,000750 Feet ´ SanBernardinoVentura RiversideOrange Imperial Los Angeles San Diego Mexico ^_ Project Vicinity Current Fire Station No. 1 34 Figure 1: Project Vicinity 1:100,000 Figure 1 Fire Station 1HQ CEQA Project Location Name: 21214 PLAN Fig 2 Project Location.Mxd Print Date: 1/29/2020, Author: pcarlos Legend Project Location 0 100 20050 Feet ´ ^_ Project Location 35 Figure 2: Project Location Villa Park E La Veta Ave Fa1rha.,•n �bmorel Pari.. E Santa Clara Ave f E 17th St ::; Taft Ave Footh11J9'%, North Tustin Figure 3 Fire Station 1HQ CEQA Site Plan Name: 21214 PLAN Fig 3 Site Plan.Mxd Print Date: 6/2/2020, Author: pcarlos 0 80 16040 Feet O Figure 3: Project Site Plan I I I I I I I f!fJTAJ!�l,t!RAIION I ' �I I �! 1· 111! �I Q:, ii 1- s ii I �I I I I I I I I I I _J I l I I I I I -�i I I I I .: ' I I r I I ' I I ' I ' I ' I I ' I ' I Figure 4 Fire Station 1HQ CEQA Parking Lot Plan Name: 21214 PLAN Fig 4 Parking Lot Plan.Mxd Print Date: 1/30/2020, Author: pcarlos 0 60 12030 Feet O 37 Figure 4: Parking Lot Plan Figure 5 Fire Station 1HQ CEQA Proposed Elevations Name: 21214 PLAN Fig 5 Proposed Elevations.Mxd Print Date: 5/15/2020, Author: pcarlos EAST ELEVATION 38 Figure 5: Elevation Drawings - -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·--��������----·- -��----·-·-·-· -·-·- ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·- ---·�:::�::! -·-·-:::�:�:�::::::::::::::::::::�_::�;�;�+ Figure 6 Fire Station 1HQ CEQA Proposed Elevations Name: 21214 PLAN Fig 6 Proposed Elevations.Mxd Print Date: 6/19/2020, Author: pcarlos WEST ELEVATION 39 Figure 6: Elevation Drawings (part 2) --- -�-� -------�-����-�--------- - ----------- --------------------------------- 33�"TOR--+- -- ----------- ----- ----------- --------- _ --------- --- --- ----------- __ ------- ----- ----- _ --- --- ------- 30 8"TOR-+- ----------------------------------------- ---------------.'-_;��::;�;i _ --- --- --- ----- --------- __ • _ ----- ----- --- _ ---- ----- 33...3 _TOR-+- -- - ----- - - ----------------------------- ----------- 30'-B" TOR+ -- -- ---- -- _ -- --- ------ __ ---- ...;,,--- _ _?5'-8" TOR--$- ---- -- ---- - - - -- ------ --- -- -- ----- - - -- 24_'·.Q: [9_P-+- REQUIRED AGENCY PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND COORDINATION: The City of Orange (City) is the lead agency under the Calfornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and is responsible for planning and implementing the Proposed Project. This environemntal document is intended to meet the requirements of CEQA for all discretionary actions taken by the City related to the Proposed Project including, but not limited to, approval of preliminary project plans, approval of final plans and specifications, authorization to bid the project for construction, and authorization to award the construction contract. Because a project also involves approvals, permits or authorization from other agencies, these agencies are “Responsible Agencies” under CEQA. Section 15381 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines Responsible Agencies as public agencies other than the Lead Agency that will have discretionary approval power of a project, including mitigation. No responsible or trustee agencies have been identified, as no other agency approvals are anticipated to be required due to Project implementation. Cooperating agencies include: • City of Orange Fire Department – approval of site plan/access • County of Orange Planning & Development – Tentative Parcel Map recording • Regional Water Quality Control Board – approval of SWPPP SCHEDULED PUBLIC MEETINGS OR HEARINGS: Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission: • August 17, 2020 • 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard • Please refer to the August 17, 2020, Planning Commission agenda to be posted on the City’s website at www.cityoforange.org for location details and updates. ! " ##$%&#’ (&)&* +,++*-.$-. / -,0’12,/& 3 ,- &)& 2,0 /% ! "# $" % "#$ $" & ’()"" 4" * ’( +,( )" ’,"- . +,()"’)#’,"- 54. 65 " # 4." / 75 . 4* &38 75 * & 3 8 4" 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999996/24/2020 42 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to Projects like the one involved (e.g., the Project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on Project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the Project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a Project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as Project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact”. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced, as discussed below). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identity the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated”, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the Project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a Project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 43 CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ISSUES: 1. AESTHETICS Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality? (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Impact Analysis a) The City of Orange General Plan characterizes portions of the City as scenic vistas that include hillsides, ridgelines, or open space areas that provide a unifying visual backdrop to the urban environment. These “viewsheds” contribute to the City’s identity and quality of life. However, no such scenic vistas are identified in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Project site (City of Orange 2010a). Views from the existing residents and businesses adjacent to the Proposed Project site is largely built out, fully urbanized, and consists mostly of one to two story residential, commercial, and institutional buildings. Thus, no significant impact to any scenic vistas are anticipated due to the construction and operation of the Proposed Project. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. b) There are no State scenic highways within the City of Orange; the City does not contain any designated scenic resources such as rock outcroppings or trees within or adjacent to a State scenic highway. Policy 7.2 of the Natural Resources Element of the City of Orange General Plan designates Santiago Canyon Road, to the east of Jamboree Road, as a City scenic highway (City of Orange 2010a). However, Santiago Canyon Road is approximately 4.5 miles away and out of the viewshed of the Proposed Project site. Furthermore, while the Proposed Project site is within 500 feet of the Old Towne Orange Historic District, the site itself is vacant except for an existing storage building and does not contain any designated historic structures (Google Map 2020). Potential impacts to historic structures on the Project site are analyzed in Section 5, Cultural Resources of this IS/MND. Additionally, no scenic rock outcroppings are located within the Project limits. No impact is anticipated. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. D D � D D D D � D D � D D D � D 44 c) As discussed in Response 1(a), the Proposed Project site is located in an urbanized part of the City of Orange with no scenic vistas designated in its vicinity. Currently, the Project site is vacant except for an existing storage building, with sparse vegetation and the site of the future parking lot is currently operated as a combination asphalt and compacted gravel parking lot with no defined landscaping or lot demarcations. The construction of the Proposed Project would not degrade the existing visual character because the vacant parcels would be developed with structures consistent with surrounding uses and associated landscaping. The Project site is located approximately 0.1 miles east of the Old Towne Orange Historic District. The architecture of the Proposed Project would be designed in a way to be harmonious with the architecture present in the Historic District and with the Historic Preservation Standards for Old Towne. As described in the Project Description of this document, the architecture of the Proposed Project has been designed to reflect the Spanish Revival style found throughout the Old Towne Orange Historic District. Further, the Proposed Project buildings would be congruous with the design guidelines established for the Old Towne Orange Historic District, and any other applicable regulations governing scenic quality to maintain visual consistency with the other buildings in the neighborhood. Based upon the proposed site design, the Project does not represent an adverse impact to the existing visual character and conditions of the surrounding area, and therefore would not degrade the visual character or quality of the surrounding area. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant. d) Existing light sources from the areas around the Proposed Project consist of lights from the vehicles, businesses and residences in the vicinity of the Project site. No lighting is currently located within the vacant main Project site parcel. Any lighting on that parcel would be spillover from neighboring buildings. The parking lot site currently functions as a parking area for the offices in the vicinity and consists of nominal associated lighting. During construction, the Proposed Project would generate light and glare from the presence and operation of vehicles and equipment. Construction would be scheduled between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except for Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday; no construction activities would occur during nighttime hours. Once operational, the Proposed Project would include new permanent lighting from outdoor building lights and security lighting for the parking area. While the Proposed Project would include installation of new permanent lighting, this type of lighting would be consistent with lighting offered at the existing buildings within the area. The Proposed Project would comply with Orange Municipal Code (OMC), Section 17.12.030 (see below), which addresses general lighting guidelines for day and nighttime uses of buildings of all the districts and would include any shielding or barriers to minimize spill over into other businesses and residences. Impacts would be less than significant. OMC Section 17.12.030 - Lighting. A Lighting on any premises shall be directed, controlled, screened or shaded in such a manner as not to shine directly on surrounding premises. Furthermore, lighting on any residential property shall be controlled so as to prevent glare or direct illumination of any public sidewalk or thoroughfares. 45 Significance Determination: Less Than Significant. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant. 46 2. AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.) Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Impact Analysis: a) The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) administered by the California Department of Conservation produces maps and statistical data to analyze impacts on California’s agricultural resources. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. The Proposed Project site is categorized as ‘Urban and Built-Up Land’ as part of the FMMP due to its location in an urban residential neighborhood in the City of Orange in Orange County (California Department of Conservation 2016). The California Department of Conservation defines ‘Urban and Built-Up Land’ as land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10- acre parcel including residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures. Thus, the Proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. No impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. b) The main Project site parcels, currently zoned Office Professional (O-P) and Single Family Residential (R-1-6), are proposed to be amended to Public Institution (P-I). The parking site is zoned D D D � D D D � D D D � D D D � D D D � 47 as Single Family Residential (R-1-6) and will retain the same designation throughout the Proposed Project activities. None of the parcels are in a Williamson Act contract or conflict with any existing agricultural use (City of Orange 2016). No impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. c) The Proposed Project site, per the current zoning of O-P and R-1-6, is intended for the development of single-family residences and professional offices, with limited retail and service commercial uses, permitted only when clearly incidental to the permitted primary office use. After the proposed zoning amendment of the main Project site to Public Institution (P-I), the site will accommodate a wide range of public and quasi-public uses, conditional on its compatibility with its surrounding uses (City of Orange 2016). The parking site will remained zoned as R-1-6, and would not have any impact to zoned forest land or timberland. The site is not currently and will not, in the future, be zoned for forest land or timberland; the Proposed Project thus would not result in the conversion of any farmland or forest land to another use. No impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. d) As noted in Impact 2(c), the Proposed Project site, located in an urbanized neighborhood in the City, is currently zoned for single-family and professional office uses and will be zoned for public or quasi- public uses after the proposed zone change. Neither of the zoning districts account for forest land or timberland (City of Orange 2016). No forest land would be lost or converted to non-forest uses for the purpose of the Proposed Project. No impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. e) The Proposed Project includes Fire Station No. 1, which will be approximately 16,574 square feet in size, as well as a two-story Headquarters which will include approximately 11,353 square feet of space. In addition, an existing prefabricated steel storage building will be retrofitted, and will provide approximately 3,780 of Reserve Apparatus storage space. The Proposed Project buildings are sited on a currently vacant and graded City-owned lot, less than a mile away from the current Fire Department Headquarters. The Proposed associated parking is located at the site of an existing parking lot, across Water Street. No changes are anticipated in the existing environment during construction or operation, which could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. 48 3. AIR QUALITY (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Introduction: The following analysis is based on the technical air quality study prepared by Vista Environmental, dated June 22, 2020 (Appendix A). Environmental Setting The Proposed Project site is located in the City of Orange in Orange County. The Proposed Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin), and air quality regulation is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD implements the programs and regulations required by the federal and State Clean Air Acts. Regulatory Setting The Proposed Project site lies within the Air Basin, which is managed by the SCAQMD. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) have been established for the following criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead. The CAAQS also set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility. Areas are classified under the Federal Clean Air Act as either “attainment” or “nonattainment” areas for each criteria pollutant, based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved or not. Attainment relative to the State standards is determined by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The Air Basin has been designated by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a nonattainment area for O3 and PM2.5. Currently, the Air Basin is in attainment with the NAAQS for CO, SO2, NO2, and PM10. The Air Basin is designated as partial nonattainment for lead based on data from two source-specific monitors in Vernon and the City of Industry that are both near battery recycling facilities. The EPA has designated the Air Basin as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour average ozone standard. The SCAQMD, the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Air Basin, adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in March 2016 that provides measures to reduce 8-hour ozone levels to below the federal standard by 2037. Additionally, the EPA has designated the Air Basin as nonattainment for PM2.5. PM2.5 is a subset of the PM10 emissions whose standards were developed to complement the PM10 standards that cover a full range of inhalable particle matter. For the PM10 health standards, the annual PM10 standard was revoked by the EPA on October 17, 2006; and the 24-hour average PM10 attainment status for the Air Basin was redesignated to attainment (maintenance) on July 26, 2013. D D � D D D � D D D � D D D � D 49 The Air Basin has been designated by CARB as a nonattainment area for ozone, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Currently, the Air Basin is in attainment with the State ambient air quality standards for CO, SO2, and sulfates and is unclassified for visibility-reducing particles and hydrogen sulfide. The adopted AQMPs provide measures to meet the State standards for ozone, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Table 1 presents the designations and classifications applicable to the Proposed Project area. Table 1: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status Criteria Pollutant Standard Averaging Time Designationa) Attainment Dateb) 1-Hour Ozonec) NAAQS 1979 1-Hour (0.12 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 2/6/2023 (revised deadline) CAAQS 1-Hour (0.09 ppm) Nonattainment N/A 8-Hour Ozoned) NAAQS 1997 8-Hour (0.08 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 6/15/2024 NAAQS 2008 8-Hour (0.075 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 8/3/2038 NAAQS 2015 8-Hour (0.070 ppm) Pending – Expect Nonattainment (Extreme) Pending (beyond 2032) CAAQS 8-Hour (0.070 ppm) Nonattainment Beyond 2032 CO NAAQS 1-Hour (35 ppm) 8-Hour (9 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 6/11/2007 (attained) CAAQS 1-Hour (20 ppm) 8-Hour (9 ppm) Attainment 6/11/2007 (attained) NO2e) NAAQS 2010 1-Hour (0.10 ppm) Unclassifiable/ Attainment N/A (attained) NAAQS 1971 Annual (0.053 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 9/22/1998 (attained) CAAQS 1-Hour (0.18 ppm) Annual (0.030 ppm) Attainment --- SO2f) NAAQS 2010 1-Hour (75 ppb) Designations Pending (expect Unclassifiable/ Attainment) N/A (attained) NAAQS 1971 24-Hour (0.14 ppm) 1971 Annual (0.03 ppm) Unclassifiable/ Attainment 3/19/1979 (attained) PM10 NAAQS 1987 24-hour (150 μg/m3) Attainment (Maintenance)g) 7/26/2013 (attained) CAAQS 24-hour (50 μg/m3) Annual (20 μg/m3) Nonattainment N/A PM.2.5h) NAAQS 2006 24-Hour (35 μg/m3) Nonattainment (Serious) 12/31/2019 NAAQS 1997 Annual (15.0 μg/m3) Attainment (final determination pending) 8/24/2016 (attained 2013) NAAQS 2012 Annual (12.0 μg/m3) Nonattainment (Moderate) 12/31/2021 CAAQS Annual (12.0 μg/m3) Nonattainment N/A Leadi) NAAQS 2008 3-Months Rolling (0.15 μg/m3) Nonattainment (Partial) (Attainment determination requested) 12/31/2015 Source: Vista Environmental 2020 Notes: a) U.S. EPA often only declares Nonattainment areas; everywhere else is listed as Unclassifiable/Attainment or Unclassifiable b) A design value below the NAAQS for data through the full year or smog season prior to the attainment date is typically required for attainment demonstration 50 c) The 1979 1-hour O3 standard (0.12 ppm) was revoked, effective June 15, 2005; however, the Basin has not attained this standard and therefore has some continuing obligations with respect to the revoked standard d) The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.075 ppm) was revised to 0.070 ppm. Effective 12/28/15 with classifications and implementation goals to be finalized by 10/1/17; the 1997 8-hour O3 NAAQS (0.08 ppm) was revoked in the 2008 O3 implementation rule, effective 4/6/15;there are continuing obligations under the revoked 1997 and revised 2008 O3 until they are attained. e) New NO2 1-hour standard, effective August 2, 2010; attainment designations January 20, 2012; annual NO2 standard retained f) The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards were revoked, effective August 23, 2010; however, these 1971 standards will remain in effect until one year after U.S. EPA promulgates area designations for the 2010 SO2 1-hour standard. Area designations are still pending, with Basin expected to be designated Unclassifiable /Attainment. g) Annual PM10 standard was revoked, effective December 18, 2006; 24-hour PM10 NAAQS deadline was 12/31/2006; SCAQMD request for attainment redesignation and PM10 maintenance plan was approved by U.S. EPA on June 26, 2013, effective July 26, 2013. h) The attainment deadline for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS was 12/31/15 for the former “moderate” classification; EPA approved reclassification to “serious”, effective 2/12/16 with an attainment deadline of 12/31/19; the 2012 (proposal year) annual PM2.5 NAAQS was revised on 1/15/13, effective 3/18/13, from 15 to 12 μg/m3; new annual designations were final 1/15/15, effective 4/15/15; on July 25, 2016 EPA finalized a determination that the Basin attained the 1997 annual (15.0 μg/m3) and 24- hour PM2.5 (65 μg/m3) NAAQS, effective August 24, 2016 i) Partial Nonattainment designation – Los Angeles County portion of Basin only for near-source monitors. Expect to remain in attainment based on current monitoring data; attainment re-designation request pending. Monitored Air Quality The air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the Air Basin. The 2016 AQMP found that since 2012 AQMP Projections were made stationary source VOC emissions have decreased by approximately 12 percent, but mobile VOC emissions have increased by 5 percent. The percentage of NOx emissions remain unchanged between the 2012 and 2016 Projections. SCAQMD has divided the Air Basin into 38 air-monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring station representative of each area. The Project site is located on the northwestern edge of Air Monitoring Area 21, which covers the southeastern portion of Orange County. The nearest air monitoring station to the Project site is the Anaheim-Pampas Lane Monitoring Station (Anaheim Station), which is located approximately 6.5 miles west of the Project site at 1630 Pampas Lane, Anaheim. The monitoring data is presented in Table 23 and shows the most recent three years of monitoring data from CARB. CO measurements have not been provided, since CO is currently in attainment in the Air Basin and monitoring of CO within the Air Basin ended on March 31, 2013. Table 2: Local Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary Pollutant (Standard) Year1 2016 2017 2018 Ozone: 1 Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.103 0.090 0.112 Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 2 0 1 Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.074 0.076 0.071 Days > NAAQS (0.070 ppm) 4 4 1 Days > CAAQs (0.070 ppm) 0 2 0 Nitrogen Dioxide: 1 Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppb) 64.3 81.2 66.0 Days > NAAQS (100 ppb) 0 0 0 Days > CAAQS (180 ppb) 0 0 0 51 Pollutant (Standard) Year1 2016 2017 2018 Inhalable Particulates (PM10) :1 Maximum 24-Hour National Measurement (ug/m3) 74.0 95.7 94.6 Days > NAAQS (150 ug/m3) 0 0 0 Days > CAAQS (50 ug/m3) 3 5 2 Annual Arithmetic Mean (AAM) (ug/m3) 28.0 26.9 27.7 Annual > NAAQS (50 ug/m3) No No No Annual > CAAQS (20 ug/m3) Yes Yes Yes Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM2.5):1 Maximum 24-Hour National Measurement (ug/m3) 44.4 53.9 63.1 Days > NAAQS (35 ug/m3) 1 7 7 Annual Arithmetic Mean (AAM) (ug/m3) 9.4 ND 12.3 Annual > NAAQS and CAAQS (12 ug/m3) No ND No Source: Vista Environmental 2020 Notes: Exceedances are listed in bold. CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard; ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; ND = no data available. 1 Data obtained from the Anaheim Station. Impact Analysis: a) The Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The following discussion elaborates on the Proposed Project’s consistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan The purpose of this analysis is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the Proposed Project would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with federal and State air quality standards. If the decision-makers determine that the Proposed Project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider Project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant Projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: (1) Whether the Project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. (2) Whether the Project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP, or increments based on the year of Project buildout and phase. Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections: 52 Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in Appendix A, short-term regional construction air emissions would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance or local thresholds of significance. The ongoing operation of the Proposed Project would generate air pollutant emissions that are inconsequential on a regional basis and would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD thresholds of significance discussed. The analysis for long- term local air quality impacts showed that local pollutant concentrations would not be Projected to exceed the air quality standards. Therefore, a less than significant long-term impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required. Therefore, based on the information provided above, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the first criterion. Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP? Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the Proposed Project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the Proposed Project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The AQMP is developed through use of the planning forecasts provided in the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) Regional Transportation and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and the Federal Highway Administration’s Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). The RTP/SCS is a major planning document for the regional transportation and land use network within Southern California. The RTP/SCS is a long-range plan that is required by federal and state requirements placed on SCAG, as the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and is updated every four years. The FTIP provides long-range planning for future transportation improvement Projects that are constructed with state and/or federal funds within Southern California. Local governments are required to use these plans as the basis of their plans for the purpose of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this Project, the City of Orange General Plan’s Land Use Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in AQMP. The General Plan Land Use Element designation for the main Project site is Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI) and is currently zoned as Office Professional (O-P) and Single Family Residential (R-1-6). The parking site has a Low Density Residential (LDR) General Plan land use designation and is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-6). The Proposed Project would include a zone amendment of the main Project site to Public Institution (P-I) to better reflect the existing nature of the land uses in the neighborhood and to ensure that the Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan. Since the Proposed Project is an allowed land use under the current General Plan land use designation and zoning, the Proposed Project is consistent with the current land use designation and zoning and is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the Project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion. Based on the above, the Proposed Project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur in relation to implementation of the AQMP. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. b) The Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient 53 air quality standard. The following section calculates the potential air emissions associated with the construction and operations of the Proposed Project and compares the emissions to the SCAQMD standards. Construction Emissions The construction activities for the Proposed Project are anticipated to include demolition and grading of both Project sites, building construction, paving of the onsite driveways, and parking lots, and application of architectural coatings. The construction emissions have been analyzed for both regional and local air quality impacts. Construction-Related Regional Impacts The CalEEMod model has been utilized to calculate the construction-related regional emissions from the Proposed Project and the input parameters utilized in this analysis have been detailed in Appendix A. The worst-case summer or winter daily construction-related criteria pollutant emissions from the Proposed Project for each phase of construction activities are shown below in Table 3 and the CalEEMod daily printouts are shown in Appendix A. Since it is possible that building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities may occur concurrently towards the end of the building construction phase, Table 3 also shows the combined regional criteria pollutant emissions from year 2022 building construction, paving and architectural coating phases of construction. Table 3: Construction-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Demolition1 Onsite 1.99 19.70 14.49 0.02 1.86 1.10 Offsite 0.13 2.73 1.13 0.00 0.34 0.01 Total 2.12 22.43 15.62 0.02 2.20 1.11 Grading1 Onsite 1.83 20.21 9.76 0..02 3.86 2.36 Offsite 0.06 0.59 0.45 0.00 0.15 0.04 Total 1.89 20.80 10.21 0.00 4.01 2.40 Building Construction (Year 2021) Onsite 2.05 16.03 14.56 0.03 0.82 0.78 Offsite 0.17 1.08 1.01 0.00 0.34 0.10 Total 2.22 17.11 15.57 0.03 1.16 0.88 Building Construction (Year 2022) Onsite 1.86 14.60 14.35 0.03 0.70 0.67 Offsite 0.12 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.09 Total 1.98 15.63 14.35 0.03 1.04 0.76 Paving Onsite 1.09 9.33 11.68 0.02 0.49 0.45 Offsite 0.05 0.03 0.43 0.00 0.04 0.05 Total 1.14 9.36 12.11 0.02 0.53 0.50 Architectural Coating Onsite 13.31 1.41 1.81 0.00 0.08 0.08 Offsite 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.06 0.02 Total 13.33 1.42 1.95 0.00 0.14 0.10 Combined Building Construction (Year 2022), Paving and Architectural Coatings 54 Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Onsite 16.26 25.34 27.84 0.05 1.27 1.20 Offsite 0.36 2.15 1.58 0.00 0.78 0.26 Total 16.62 27.49 29.42 0.05 2.05 1.46 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 16.62 27.49 29.42 0.05 4.01 2.40 SCQAMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: Vista Environmental 2020 Notes: 1 Demolition and Grading based on adherence to fugitive dust suppression requirements from SCAQMD Rule 403. 2 Onsite emissions from equipment not operated on public roads. 3 Offsite emissions from vehicles operating on public roads. Table 3 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds during either demolition, grading, or the combined building construction, paving and architectural coatings phases. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from construction of the Proposed Project. Construction-Related Local Impacts Construction-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed through utilizing the methodology described in Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), prepared by SCAQMD, revised October 2009. The LST Methodology found the primary criteria pollutant emissions of concern are NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. In order to determine if any of these pollutants require a detailed analysis of the local air quality impacts, each phase of construction was screened using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables. The Look-up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily onsite emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the Proposed Project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. Table 4 shows the onsite emissions from the CalEEMod model for the different construction phases and the calculated localized emissions thresholds that have been detailed in Section 8.2 of Appendix A. Since it is possible that building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities may occur concurrently towards the end of the building construction phase, Table 4 also shows the combined local criteria pollutant emissions from year 2022 building construction, paving and architectural coating phases of construction. Table 4: Construction-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1 Phase NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Demolition2 20.04 14.63 1.90 1.10 Grading2 20.28 9.82 3.88 2.37 Building Construction (Year 2021) 16.17 14.69 0.86 0.79 Combined Building Construction (Year 2021), Paving and Architectural Coatings 25.61 28.04 1.37 1.23 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 20.28 14.63 3.88 2.37 55 Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1 Phase NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 SCAQMD Local Construction Thresholds3 115 715 6 4 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Source: Vista Environmental 2020. Notes: 1 The Pollutant Emissions include 100% of the On-Site emissions (off-road equipment and fugitive dust) and 1/8 of the Off- Site emissions (on road trucks and worker vehicles), in order to account for the on-road emissions that occur within a ¼ mile of the Project site. 2 Demolition and Grading phases based on adherence to fugitive dust suppression requirements from SCAQMD Rule 403. 3 The nearest offsite sensitive receptors are homes located 60 feet (18 meters) east of the Main Project site and 30 feet (9 meters) southwest of the parking site. According to SCAQMD methodology, all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25 meter threshold. The data provided in Table 4 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local emissions thresholds during either demolition, grading, or the combined building construction, paving, and architectural coatings phases. Therefore, a less than significant local air quality impact would occur from construction of the Proposed Project. Operational Emissions The on-going operation of the Proposed Project would result in a long-term increase in air quality emissions. This increase would be due to emissions from the Project-generated vehicle trips, emissions from energy usage, onsite area source emissions created from the on-going use of the Proposed Project, and from the proposed 125 kilowatt backup diesel generator. The following section provides an analysis of potential long-term air quality impacts due to regional air quality and local air quality impacts with the on-going operations of the Proposed Project. Operations-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Analysis The operations-related regional criteria air quality impacts created by the Proposed Project have been analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model and the input parameters utilized in this analysis have been detailed in Section 8.1 of Appendix A. The worst-case summer or winter VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 daily emissions created from the Proposed Project’s long-term operations have been calculated and are summarized below in Table 5 and the CalEEMod daily emissions printouts are shown in Appendix A. The data provided in Table 5 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from operation of the Proposed Project. Table 5: Operational Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources1 0.72 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage2 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 Mobile Sources3 1.71 4.87 8.08 0.01 0.49 0.14 Backup Generator4 0.16 0.44 0.40 0.00 0.02 0.02 Total Emissions 2.60 5.38 8.55 0.01 0.52 0.17 SCQAMD Operational Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No 56 Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Source: Vista Environmental 2020. Notes: 1 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 2 Energy usage consist of emissions from natural gas usage. 3 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. 4 Backup Generator based on a 125 kW (190 Horsepower) diesel generator that has a cycling schedule of 30 minutes per week. In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 (also referred to as “Friant Ranch”), the California Supreme Court held that when an EIR concluded that when a project would have significant impacts to air quality impacts, an EIR should “make a reasonable effort to substantively connect a Project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” In order to determine compliance with this Case, the Court developed a multi-part test that includes the following: 1) The air quality discussion shall describe the specific health risks created from each criteria pollutant, including diesel particulate matter. Appendix A details the specific health risks created from each criteria pollutant discussed in Section 4.1 and specifically in Table B of Appendix A. In addition, the specific health risks created from diesel particulate matter is detailed in Section 2.2 of Appendix A. As such, this analysis meets the part 1 requirements of the Friant Ranch Case. 2) The analysis shall identify the magnitude of the health risks created from the Project. The Ruling details how to identify the magnitude of the health risks. Specifically, on page 24 of the ruling it states “The Court of Appeal identified several ways in which the EIR could have framed the analysis so as to adequately inform the public and decision makers of possible adverse health effects. The County could have, for example, identified the Project’s impact on the days of nonattainment per year.” Table 5 above shows that the primary source of operational air emissions would be created from mobile source emissions that would be generated throughout the Air Basin. As such, any adverse health impacts created from the Proposed Project should be assessed on a basin-wide level. As indicated in Appendix A, the Air Basin has been designated by EPA for the national standards as a non-attainment area for ozone, PM2.5, and partial non-attainment for lead. In addition, PM10 has been designated by the State as non-attainment. It should be noted that VOC and NOx are ozone precursors, as such they have been considered as non-attainment pollutants. According to the 2016 AQMP, in 2016 the total emissions of: VOC was 500 tons per year; NOx was 522 tons per year; SOx was 18 tons per year; and PM2.5 was 66 tons per year. Since the 2016 AQMP did not calculate total PM10 emissions, the total PM10 emissions were obtained from The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by CARB, for the year 2020. The Project contribution to each criteria pollutant in the South Coast Air Basin is shown in Table 6. Table 6: Project’s Contribution to Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Emissions Source VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Project Emissions1 2.60 5.38 8.55 0.01 0.52 0.17 Total Emissions in Air Basin2 1,000,000 1,044,000 4,246,000 36,000 322,000 132,000 57 Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Emissions Source VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Project’s Percent of Air Emissions 0.0003% 0.0005% 0.0002% 0.00003% 0.0002% 0.0001% SCQAMD Operational Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: Vista Environmental 2020. Notes: 1 From the Project’s total operational emissions shown above in Table 5. 2 VOC, NOx, CO, SO2 and PM2.5 from 2016 AQMP and PM10 from the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition. As shown in Table 6, the Project would increase criteria pollutant emissions by as much as 0.0005 percent for NOx in the South Coast Air Basin. Due to these nominal increases in the Air Basin-wide criteria pollutant emissions, no increases in days of non-attainment are anticipated to occur from operation of the Proposed Project. As such, this analysis meets the part 2 requirements of the Friant Ranch Case and therefore no further analysis is required. Therefore, operation of the Project is not anticipated to result in a quantitative increase in premature deaths, asthma in children, days children will miss school, asthma-related emergency room visits, or an increase in acute bronchitis among children due to the criteria pollutants created by the Proposed Project. Impacts would be less than significant. Operations-Related Local Air Quality Impacts Project-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The Proposed Project has been analyzed for the potential local CO emission impacts from the Project-generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality impacts from on-site operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions and local impacts from on-site operations. Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project-Generated Vehicular Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with Project CO levels to the State and Federal CO standards of 20 ppm over one hour or 9 ppm over eight hours. At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the Air Basin was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Air Basin and in the state have steadily declined. According to the SCAQMD Air Quality Data Tables, in 2007 Central Orange County had maximum CO concentrations of 4.0 ppm for 1 hour and 2.9 ppm for 8-hours and in 2018 Central Orange County had maximum CO concentrations of 2.3 ppm for 1-hour and 1.9 ppm for 8- hours, which represent decreases in CO concentrations of 43 percent and 34 percent, respectively between 2018 and 2007. In 2007, the Air Basin was designated in attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS. SCAQMD conducted a CO hot spot analysis for attainment at the busiest intersections in Los Angeles during the peak morning and afternoon periods and did not predict a violation of CO standards. Since the nearby intersections to the Proposed Project are much smaller with less traffic than what was analyzed by the SCAQMD and since the CO concentrations are now at least 34 percent lower than when CO was designated in attainment in 2007, no local CO Hotspot are 58 anticipated to be created from the Proposed Project and no CO Hotspot modeling was performed. Therefore, a less than significant long-term air quality impact is anticipated to local air quality with the on-going use of the Proposed Project. Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Onsite Operations Project-related air emissions from onsite sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and onsite usage of natural gas appliances may have the potential to create emissions areas that exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The local air quality emissions from onsite operations were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables and the methodology described in LST Methodology. The Look-up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the Proposed Project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. Table 7 shows the onsite emissions from the CalEEMod model that includes area sources, energy usage, and vehicles operating in the immediate vicinity of the Project site and the calculated emissions thresholds. Table 7: Operations-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Onsite Emission Source NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.01 Mobile Sources 0.61 1.01 0.06 0.02 Backup Generator 0.44 0.40 0.02 0.02 Total Emissions 1.12 1.48 0.09 0.05 SCAQMD Local Operational Thresholds1 115 715 2 1 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Source: Vista Environmental 2020. Notes: 1 The nearest offsite sensitive receptors are homes located 60 feet (18 meters) east of the Main Project site and 30 feet (9 meters) southwest of the parking site. According to SCAQMD methodology, all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25 meter threshold. The data provided in Table 7 shows that the on-going operations of the Proposed Project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance discussed in Appendix A. Therefore, the on-going operations of the Proposed Project would create a less than significant operations-related impact to local air quality due to onsite emissions and no mitigation would be required. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. c) The Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The local concentrations of criteria pollutant emissions produced in the nearby vicinity of the Proposed 59 Project, which may expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations have been calculated in Appendix A for both construction and operations, which are discussed separately below. The discussion below also includes an analysis of the potential impacts from toxic air contaminant emissions. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Main Project site are homes located on the east side of Jameson Street, which are as near as 60 feet east of the Main Project site. The nearest sensitive receptors to the parking site are homes located as near as 30 feet southwest of the parking site. Construction-Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts The construction activities for the Proposed Project are anticipated to include anticipated to include demolition and grading of both Project sites, building construction, paving of the onsite driveways and parking lots, and application of architectural coatings. Construction activities may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of localized criteria pollutant concentrations and from toxic air contaminant emissions created from onsite construction equipment, which are described below. Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Construction The local air quality impacts from construction of the Proposed Project has been analyzed in Section 10.3 of Appendix A and found that the construction of the Proposed Project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance discussed in Section 9.2 of Appendix A. Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would create a less than significant construction- related impact to local air quality and no mitigation would be required. Toxic Air Contaminants Impacts from Construction The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the Proposed Project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of “individual cancer risk”. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. It should be noted that the most current cancer risk assessment methodology recommends analyzing a 30 year exposure period for the nearby sensitive receptors (OEHHA, 2015). Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment, the varying distances that construction equipment would operate to the nearby sensitive receptors, and the short-term construction schedule, the Proposed Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 30 or 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. In addition, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off-road diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits idling of equipment to no more than five minutes, requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual reports to CARB of their fleet’s usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet, and currently no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 0 or Tier 1 equipment and by January 2023 no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 2 equipment. In addition to the purchase restrictions, equipment operators need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more stringent each year between years 2014 and 2023. As of January 2019, 25 percent or more of all contractors’ equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher. Therefore, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the Proposed Project. As such, construction of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 60 Operations-Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts The on-going operations of the Proposed Project may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of local CO emission impacts from the Project-generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality impacts from onsite operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions. Local criteria pollutant impacts from onsite operations, and toxic air contaminant impacts. Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project-Generated Vehicle Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential impacts to sensitive receptors. The analysis provided in Response 3(b) shows that no local CO Hotspots are anticipated to be created at any nearby intersections from the vehicle traffic generated by the Proposed Project. Therefore, operation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant exposure of offsite sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Onsite Operations The local air quality impacts from the operation of the Proposed Project would occur from onsite sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and onsite usage of natural gas appliances. The analysis provided in Response 3(b) found that the operation of the Proposed Project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Therefore, the on- going operations of the Proposed Project would create a less than significant operations-related impact to local air quality due to on-site emissions and no mitigation would be required. Operations-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts Particulate matter (PM) from diesel exhaust is the predominant toxic air contaminants (TAC) in most areas and according to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by CARB, about 80 percent of the outdoor TAC cancer risk is from diesel exhaust. Some chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde have been listed as carcinogens by State Proposition 65 and the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program. Due to the nominal number of diesel truck trips that are anticipated to be generated by the Proposed Project, a less than significant TAC impact would occur during the on-going operations of the Proposed Project and no mitigation would be required. Operation of the Proposed Project would create TAC emissions from operation of a 250 kilowatt (389 horsepower) backup diesel generator equipped with a diesel particulate filter (DPF) that will limit DPM created from the backup generator. Backup generators typically cycle on for 30 minutes on a weekly basis in order to keep the engine lubricated and ready to use in case of a power outage. The typical cycling of a backup generator would operate for approximately 26 hours per year. SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 exempts emergency standby generators that operate less than 200 hours per year from obtaining an air permit. The SCAQMD has developed the operating hour exemption limits based on levels that were determined to result in the generation of inconsequential emissions from backup generators. As such, the cancer risk created from the backup generator’s TAC emissions to the nearby sensitive receptors is anticipated to be negligible. Therefore, through adherence to the backup generator operating time limits detailed in Rule 1110.2, less than significant long-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during operation of the Proposed Project. Therefore, operation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 61 Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. d) The Proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Individual responses to odors are highly variable and can result in a variety of effects. Generally, the impact of an odor results from a variety of factors such as frequency, duration, offensiveness, location, and sensory perception. The frequency is a measure of how often an individual is exposed to an odor in the ambient environment. The intensity refers to an individual’s or group’s perception of the odor strength or concentration. The duration of an odor refers to the elapsed time over which an odor is experienced. The offensiveness of the odor is the subjective rating of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of an odor. The location accounts for the type of area in which a potentially affected person lives, works, or visits; the type of activity in which he or she is engaged; and the sensitivity of the impacted receptor. Sensory perception has four major components: detectability, intensity, character, and hedonic tone. The detection (or threshold) of an odor is based on a panel of responses to the odor. There are two types of thresholds: the odor detection threshold and the recognition threshold. The detection threshold is the lowest concentration of an odor that will elicit a response in a percentage of the people that live and work in the immediate vicinity of the Project site and is typically presented as the mean (or 50 percent of the population). The recognition threshold is the minimum concentration that is recognized as having a characteristic odor quality, this is typically represented by recognition by 50 percent of the population. The intensity refers to the perceived strength of the odor. The odor character is what the substance smells like. The hedonic tone is a judgment of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the odor. The hedonic tone varies in subjective experience, frequency, odor character, odor intensity, and duration. Potential odor impacts have been analyzed separately for construction and operations below. Construction-Related Odor Impacts Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of coatings such as asphalt pavement, paints and solvents and from emissions from diesel equipment. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the Project site’s boundaries. Due to the transitory nature of construction odors, a less than significant odor impact would occur and no mitigation would be required. Operations-Related Odor Impacts Potential sources of odor emission during operation of the Proposed Project would include diesel emissions from the fire trucks and backup generator as well as odors from trash storage areas. All fire trucks that operate on the Project site will be required to meet State emissions standards that require the use of diesel particulate filters that would minimize odors created from the fire trucks. The operation of the backup diesel generator would be limited to 200 hours or less per year and would include an exhaust stack with a diesel particulate filter that would limit the exhaust and associated odors created from the generator to negligible levels. Pursuant to City regulations, permanent trash enclosures that protect trash bins from rain as well as limit air circulation would be required for the trash storage areas. Due to the distance of the nearest sensitive receptor from the Project site and through compliance with SCAQMD’s rules that include Rule 402 (odor regulations) and Rule 1110.2 (backup generator regulations) and the City’s trash storage regulations, a less than significant impact related to odors would occur during the on-going operations of the Proposed Project. Operational- related odor impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. 62 Therefore, a less than significant odor impact would occur and no mitigation would be required. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 63 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact Analysis: a) The Project site is currently zoned as Office Professional (O-P) and Single Family Residential (R-1- 6) and the parking site is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1-6). After the proposed zoning change, included as a part of the Project, the main Project site will be zoned as Public Institutional (P- I). The zoning of the parking site will remain unchanged. The sites are located in an urbanized area of the City and are surrounded by the City of Orange Water Division, residential and office buildings. The main Project site is fenced, graded and consists of dirt, sand, gravel, sparse vegetation, and trash and debris. Due to the urban nature of the area and fact that the site is graded and vacant, the Proposed Project site is not expected to be a suitable habitat to house any sensitive or special status species. While the site is not considered to be suitable habitat, it is possible that birds may use the existing vegetation, surrounding the parking site, for potential nesting. The Proposed Project would attempt to avoid vegetation removal activities during nesting season (February to September). However, mitigation measure BIO-1 has been included to minimize any potential impacts to nesting birds during construction due to their potential presence in vacant and urban environments. Although only a few small trees and a small number of shrubs were observed on the site of the parking lot and sparse vegetation on the site of the fire station and headquarters, the Proposed Project has the potential to disturb ground-nesting birds and birds nesting in trees located in the buffer area of the sites. All trees located within the main Project site and parking site would be protected in place; however, two Ficus trees would be removed along Chapman Avenue. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 would reduce impacts on nesting birds to a level less than significant and comply with D � D D D D D � D D D � D � D D D D � D D D D � 64 the Migratory Bird Treaty Act which protects the removal of listed migratory birds or their parts such as eggs and nests from private property. BIO-1: Nesting Birds. If Project clearing and construction must occur during the avian nesting season (February 1 to September 1), a survey for active nests must be conducted by a qualified biologist one to two weeks no more than three days prior to the activities to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the Project site. If no active nests are discovered or identified, no further mitigation is required. In the event that active nests are discovered on site, a suitable buffer determined by the qualified biologist (e.g., 30 to 50 feet for passerines) should be established around such active nests. Buffers typically have a minimum width of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors). No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Limits of construction to avoid a nest site shall be established in the field by a qualified biologist with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be instructed regarding the ecological sensitivity of the fenced area. The results of the survey shall be documented and filed with the Community Development Director within five days after the survey With implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: BIO-1. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. b) The Proposed Project site does not include riparian habitat, wetlands, or a sensitive natural community and is currently graded and vacant (USFWS 2020). The Proposed Project site and surrounding areas are urban, predominantly built out and consist primarily of residential and office buildings. Therefore, impacts to riparian or sensitive habitats is not expected. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. c) According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map, the Proposed Project is not located on any protected wetlands or areas that appear to contain wetlands, marshes, or vernal pools (USFWS 2020). No impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. d) The Proposed Project is located in an urbanized area primarily surrounded by residential and office uses. As discussed in Response 4(a), the Proposed Project is not expected to be a suitable habitat that would house any sensitive or special status species. No water bodies are present that can provide an adequate habitat for migratory fish. The area is not designated for a wildlife nursery site. The two Proposed Project sites are not a designated habitat for any endangered species or any species of concern. 65 While the Proposed Project is not found to contain suitable habitat for migratory species, the Proposed Project has the potential to disturb ground-nesting birds and birds nesting in trees located in the buffer area of the Project site. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 would reduce impacts on nesting birds to a level less than significant and comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act which protects the removal of listed migratory birds or their parts such as eggs and nests from private property. Implementation of BIO-1 would result in less than significant impacts to trees and migratory wildlife with mitigation incorporated. Significance Determination: Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: BIO-1. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. e) While little to no vegetation exists on the graded Project site, a few trees and shrubs were observed on the site of the proposed parking lot. However, the Proposed Project design, including the landscaping for the associated parking lot, does not require the removal of any trees on site during construction; only two Ficus trees would be removed along Chapman Avenue. However, the removal will be undertaken only after coordination with the Community Services Department and Public Works Department. Although there is a possibility of the Proposed Project conflicting with a local ordinances related to preservation of biological resources, such as street trees, coordination with staff from Community Services and Public Works Departments that have arboricultural expertise reduces any potential impacts to a less than significant level. Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. f) As noted in Response 4(a), the Proposed Project site is not expected to include suitable habitat that would house any sensitive or special status species. The Proposed Project sites are within an area primarily for residential, office and institutional uses; the area is not designated as, nor would it be considered, a suitable habitat for species or for conservation uses. No impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. 66 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in §15064.5? (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Impact Analysis: a) The Proposed Project site is not located within any of the City of Orange’s historic districts, but is located approximately 0.1 miles east of the Old Towne Orange Historic District boundary (City of Orange 2010e). As discussed in Response 1(c), the Proposed Project architecture would be congruous with the design guidelines established for the Old Towne Orange Historic District. The Proposed Project site is not listed as a Designated Historic Resources in the General Plan (City of Orange 2010e). The main Project site is currently graded and vacant with the exception of an existing storage building. The storage building is constructed of masonry and wood framing covered by corrugated metal panels. It does not contain any distinct architectural features and is not constructed in any particular architectural style relevant to a period of significance to the City. The parking site currently operates as an existing parking lot and does not contain any built features onsite. Therefore, considering the Proposed Project site does not involve direct impacts to any historical resources, less than significant impacts are anticipated. Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than Significant Impact. b) The fire station lot of the Proposed Project site has been previously graded and developed, and the parking site currently has a combination asphalt and compacted gravel surface. Further, the areas surrounding the Proposed Project are fully developed and ground disturbing activities have occurred through the installation of building foundations and utility lines. The Proposed Project would not include grading that would extend in depths reaching native soils. The depth of disturbance would be approximately 5-6 feet below existing grade at the buildings. Any grading that would occur would be within depths where previous utility lines would be located during the development of the surrounding areas. Figure 5.5-2 (Historical Archaeological Sensitivity) of the City’s General Plan EIR notes that a Farmstead Development (1870s-1920) has been identified in the area of the Project site. Due to the historic settlement of the Project area and vicinity, there is the potential to encounter buried cultural material associated with early 20 century development. In addition, the Project area was inhabited prehistorically, and is located approximately 0.5 miles northwest of Santiago Creek. Because prehistoric settlements typically occurred in proximity to natural waterways, there is also the potential for encountering buried prehistoric cultural resources during construction excavation. As such, it is possible that unknown archaeological resources could exist at the Project site and could be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction. If proper care D D � D D � D D D D � D 67 is not taken, significant impacts to unknown archaeological resources could occur. However, the Project Applicant would be required to implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which provides direction for the proper recordation of previously undiscovered archaeological resources, should such resources be found during Project construction activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL- 1 would ensure that the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. Therefore, with mitigation, Project impacts related to archaeological resources would be less than significant. CUL-1: In the event a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during earthwork activities, as determined by the foreperson, qualified Native American Monitor, qualified archaeologist, or any City official, all subsurface construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease and workers shall avoid altering the materials until a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology has evaluated the situation. The City of Orange Public Works Department shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in the construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any resources found during construction activities shall expeditiously be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, glass, ceramics, wood, or shell artifacts, or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined to be significant under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, the qualified archaeologist shall expeditiously prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The archaeologist shall also expeditiously perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive report complete with methods, results, and recommendations, and provide for the permanent curation or repatriation of the recovered resources in cooperation with the designated most likely descendant as needed. The report shall be submitted to the City of Orange Community Development Department, the South Central Coastal Information Center, and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), if required. Significance Determination: Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: CUL-1 Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. c) There are no known cemeteries located within the Proposed Project site. The areas surrounding the Proposed Project are fully developed and ground disturbing activities have occurred through the installation of building foundations, as well and installation of utility lines to service the area. However, because resources are often buried and not easily identifiable, the Proposed Project would be subject to local, State, and federal regulations if any cultural resources, including human remains, are identified. In accordance with the State’s Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains at the Project site, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains will occur until the Orange County Coroner has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) or Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the 68 recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. As a result, impacts would be less than significant based on compliance with existing regulations. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 69 6. ENERGY Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation? (b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? The following analysis is based on the technical energy usage study prepared by Vista Environmental, dated June 22, 2020 (Appendix A). Impact Analysis: a) The Proposed Project would impact energy resources during construction and operation. Energy resources that would be potentially impacted include electricity, natural gas, and petroleum based fuel supplies and distribution systems. This analysis includes a discussion of the potential energy impacts of the Proposed Project, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The following analysis calculates the potential energy consumption associated with the construction and operations of the Proposed Project and provides a determination if any energy utilized by the Proposed Project is wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Electricity is provided to the Project Site by Southern California Edison (SCE). Natural gas is provided to the Project Site by The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). Both forms of energy are provided to the Project Site via existing infrastructure located adjacent to the site. The Project would be served by this infrastructure and would not require the need for new, expanded, or relocated energy infrastructure. Construction Energy The construction activities for the Proposed Project are anticipated to include demolition and grading of both Project sites, building construction, paving of the onsite driveways and parking lots, and application of architectural coatings. The Proposed Project would consume energy resources during construction in three general forms: 1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project Site, construction worker travel to and from the Project Site, as well as delivery and haul truck trips (e.g. hauling of demolition material to off-site reuse and disposal facilities). 2. Electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during Project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power; and, 3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass. Construction-Related Electricity During construction, the Proposed Project would consume electricity to construct the new structures and infrastructure. Electricity would be supplied to the Project site by SCE and would be obtained D D � D D D � D 70 from the existing electrical lines in the vicinity of the Project site. The use of electricity from existing power lines rather than temporary diesel or gasoline powered generators would minimize impacts on energy use. Electricity consumed during Project construction would vary throughout the construction period based on the construction activities being performed. Various construction activities include electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during Project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power. Such electricity demand would be temporary, nominal, and would cease upon the completion of construction. Overall, construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would require limited electricity consumption that would not be expected to have an adverse impact on available electricity supplies and infrastructure. Therefore, the use of electricity during Project construction would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Since there are power poles running along the east side of the Project site, it is anticipated that only nominal improvements would be required to SCE distribution lines and equipment with development of the Proposed Project. Where feasible, the new service installations and connections would be scheduled and implemented in a manner that would not result in electrical service interruptions to other properties. Compliance with City guidelines and requirements would ensure that the Proposed Project fulfills its responsibilities relative to infrastructure installation, coordinates any electrical infrastructure removals or relocations, and limits any impacts associated with construction of the Project. Construction of the Project’s electrical infrastructure is not anticipated to adversely affect the electrical infrastructure serving the surrounding uses or utility system capacity. Construction-Related Natural Gas Construction of the Proposed Project typically would not involve the consumption of natural gas. Natural gas would not be supplied to support construction activities, thus there would be no demand generated by construction. Since the Project site is currently developed that currently has natural gas service to the Project site, construction of the Proposed Project would be limited to installation of new natural gas connections within the Project site. Development of the Proposed Project would likely not require extensive infrastructure improvements to serve the Project site. Construction-related energy usage impacts associated with the installation of natural gas connections are expected to be confined to trenching in order to place the lines below surface. In addition, prior to ground disturbance, the Proposed Project would notify and coordinate with SoCalGas to identify the locations and depth of all existing gas lines and avoid disruption of gas service. Therefore, construction-related impacts to natural gas supply and infrastructure would be less than significant. Construction-Related Petroleum Fuel Use Petroleum-based fuel usage represents the highest amount of transportation energy potentially consumed during construction, which would utilized by both off-road equipment operating on the Project site and on-road automobiles transporting workers to and from the Project site and on-road trucks transporting equipment and supplies to the Project site. The off-road construction equipment fuel usage was calculated through use of the off-road equipment assumptions and fuel use assumptions shown in Section 8.3 of Appendix A, which found that the off- road equipment utilized during construction of the Proposed Project would consume 39,727 gallons of fuel. The on-road construction trips fuel usage was calculated through use of the construction vehicle trip assumptions and fuel use assumptions shown in Section 8.3 of Appendix A, which found that the on-road trips generated from construction of the Proposed Project would consume 8,064 gallons of 71 fuel. As such, the combined fuel used from off-road construction equipment and on-road construction trips for the Proposed Project would result in the consumption of 47,787 gallons of petroleum fuel. Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be required to adhere to all State and SCAQMD regulations for off-road equipment and on-road trucks, which provide minimum fuel efficiency standards. As such, construction activities for the Proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts regarding transportation energy would be less than significant. Development of the Project would not result in the need to manufacture construction materials or create new building material facilities specifically to supply the Proposed Project. It is difficult to measure the energy used in the production of construction materials such as asphalt, steel, and concrete, it is reasonable to assume that the production of building materials such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest of minimizing the cost of doing business. Operational Energy The on-going operation of the Proposed Project would require the use of energy resources for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, heating/ventilating/air conditioning (HVAC), refrigeration, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Energy would also be consumed during operations related to water usage, solid waste disposal, landscape equipment and vehicle trips. Operations-Related Electricity Operation of the Proposed Project would result in consumption of electricity at the Project site. As detailed in Section 8.3 of Appendix A, the Proposed Project would consume 375,876 kilowatt-hours per year of electricity. It should be noted that, the Proposed Project would comply with all federal, State, and City requirements related to the consumption of electricity, including California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards. The CCR Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11 standards require numerous energy efficiency measures to be incorporated into the proposed buildings, including enhanced insulation, use of energy efficient lighting and appliances as well as requiring a variety of other energy-efficiency measures to be incorporated into all of the proposed structures. Therefore, it is anticipated the Proposed Project will be designed and built to minimize electricity use and that existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to support the Proposed Project’s electricity demand. Thus, impacts with regard to electrical supply and infrastructure capacity would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Operations-Related Natural Gas Operation of the Proposed Project would result in increased consumption of natural gas at the Project site. As detailed in Section 8.3 of Appendix A, the Proposed Project would consume 40 MBTU per year of natural gas. It should be noted that, the Proposed Project would comply with all federal, State, and City requirements related to the consumption of natural gas, including CCR Title 24, Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards. The CCR Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11 standards require numerous energy efficiency measures to be incorporated into the proposed structures, including enhanced insulation as well as use of efficient natural gas appliances and HVAC units. Therefore, it is anticipated the Proposed Project will be designed and built to minimize natural gas use and that existing and planned natural gas capacity and natural gas supplies would be sufficient to support the Proposed Project’s natural gas demand. Thus, impacts with regard to natural gas supply and infrastructure capacity would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. 72 Operations-Related Vehicular Petroleum Fuel Usage Operation of the Proposed Project would result in increased consumption of petroleum-based fuels related to vehicular travel to and from the Project site. As detailed in Section 8.3 of Appendix A, the Proposed Project would consume 6,305 gallons of petroleum fuel per year from vehicle travel and 385 gallons of diesel per year from the operation of the backup generator. It should be noted that, the Proposed Project would comply with all federal, State, and City requirements related to the consumption of transportation energy, including California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11 California Green Building Standards that require the proposed project to provide both long-term and short-term bicycle parking spaces that will promote the use of alternative transportation. Therefore, it is anticipated the Proposed Project will be designed and built to minimize transportation energy through the promotion of the use of alternative transportation and it is anticipated that existing and planned capacity and supplies of transportation fuels would be sufficient to support the Proposed Project’s demand. Thus, impacts with regard transportation energy supply and infrastructure capacity would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. In conclusion, the Proposed Project would comply with regulatory compliance measures outlined by the State and City related to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG), Transportation/Circulation, and Water Supply. Additionally, the Proposed Project would be constructed in accordance with all applicable Building and Fire Codes. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during Project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. b) The Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The applicable energy plan for the Proposed Project is the City of Orange General Plan, March 2010, that provides an Energy Resources Component. The Proposed Project’s consistency with the applicable energy-related policies in the General Plan are shown in Table 8. Table 8: Proposed Project Compliance with City General Plan Energy Policies General Plan Energy Policy Proposed Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Natural Resources Element Goal 2.0: Protect air, water, and energy resources from pollution and overuse. Consistent. The Proposed Project would not overuse air, water, and energy resources. Policy 2.1: Cooperate with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and other regional agencies to implement and enforce regional air quality management plans. Consistent. The Proposed Project is consistent with the SCAQMD air quality management plan. Policy 2.2: Support alternative transportation modes, alternative technologies, and bicycle- and pedestrian- friendly neighborhoods to reduce emissions related to vehicular travel. Consistent. The Proposed Project has a bus stop on the Project site that would promote the use of alternative transportation to the Project. Policy 2.6: Encourage sustainable building and site designs for new construction and renovation Projects. Consistent. The Proposed Project has taken into account site designs for sustainability. Policy 2.7: Coordinate with energy suppliers to ensure adequate energy supplies to meet community needs, and to promote energy conservation and public education Not Applicable. This policy is only applicable to the City to work with energy suppliers. 73 General Plan Energy Policy Proposed Project Consistency with General Plan Policies programs for that purpose. Policy 2.9: Promote City operations as a model for energy efficiency and green building. Consistent. The Proposed Project has been designed to meet green building standards. Policy 2.10: Work toward replacing existing City vehicles with ultra low or zero emission vehicles. At a minimum, new City vehicles shall be low emission vehicles as defined by the California Air Resources Board, except if certain vehicle types are not available in the marketplace. Public safety vehicles are exempted from this requirement. Not Applicable. This is a City requirement for City vehicles to be ultra low to zero emissions vehicles, which is not a part of the Project. Infrastructure Element Goal 3.0: Ensure adequate maintenance of public rights-of-way to enhance public safety and improve circulation. Not Applicable. This is a City requirement; however the Project does provide adequate rights-of-way. Policy 3.4: Investigate the feasibility of using energy- efficient street lights to conserve energy. Not Applicable. This is a City requirement to place energy efficient street lights. Infrastructure Element Goal 4.0: Ensure adequate provision of electricity, natural gas, telephone and data services and cable television. Consistent. The Proposed Project has been designed to ensure adequate capacity of electricity, natural gas, data and cable television can be supplied to the Project. Policy 4.4: Encourage integrated and cost-effective design and technology features within new development to minimize demands on dry utility networks. Consistent. The Proposed Project will be constructed using the most current design and technologies for dry utility networks. Source: Vista Environmental 2020. As shown in Table 8, the Proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable energy-related policies provided in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 74 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The following analysis is based on the technical geotechnical investigation prepared by Leighton Consulting, dated September 26, 2019 (Appendix B). Impact Analysis: a) i) As noted in the Public Safety Element of the City of Orange General Plan, no known Alquist- Priolo fault zone is located in the City. A geotechnical investigation of the site (Appendix B) revealed that the closest known active or potentially active faults are the Elysian Park Blind Thrust and the Puente Hills Blind Thrust fault systems, located approximately 9 miles northwest of the Proposed Project site. However, due to the fact that no active faults traverse the site and the site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, the potential risk for surface fault rupture through the site is considered low (Leighton 2019). Due to its location in Southern California, a seismically active region, it is highly likely that regional earthquakes might occur that could affect the Proposed Project site. However, in accordance with the City of Orange requirements, the Project Applicant would comply with any recommendations made in a final Geotechnical Exploration Report that addresses the final design of the Project. Additionally, all structures and onsite facilities would be designed in accordance with all applicable current codes and standards utilizing the appropriate seismic design parameters to reduce seismic risk as defined by California Geological Survey Chapter 2 of Special Publication 117A and the most current edition of the California Building Code. Therefore, considering that the Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and would comply with all local and D D � D D D � D D D D � D D D � D D � D D D � D D D D � D D � D D D � D 75 State requirements, the potential impacts due to rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant. a) ii) As noted in the Public Safety Element, the City of Orange is vulnerable to ground shaking caused by seismic events along large regional faults in the area, including the Newport-Inglewood Fault, the Elsinore Fault, and the San Andreas Fault. These faults, along with its associated fault zones, has the potential to cause widespread seismic movements in the City. A geotechnical investigation of the site (Appendix B) revealed that the closest known active or potentially active faults are the Elysian Park Blind Thrust and the Puente Hills Blind Thrust fault systems, located approximately 9 miles northwest of the Proposed Project site. The potential for ground shaking within the City depends on the distance to the fault and the intensity of a specific seismic event along the fault. The Public Safety Element describes two potential events of an 8.3 Richter Magnitude earthquake along San Andreas Fault and a 7.5 Richter Magnitude earthquake along Newport-Inglewood Fault. The Proposed Project site is approximately 1 to 2 miles away from the nearest potential ground shaking boundaries in the respective cases; it is assumed that the sites would be exposed to ground shaking during the event of a comparable earthquake along these faults (City of Orange 2010b). However, in accordance with the City of Orange requirements, the Project Applicant would comply with any recommendations made in a final Geotechnical Exploration Report that addresses the final design of the Project. In addition, all structures and onsite facilities would be designed in accordance with the California Geological Survey and California Building Code seismic safety standards to minimize the hazards from earthquakes and other seismic activities. Since the design and construction of the Proposed Project would be required to conform to the specific mandated structural design requirements to protect against strong seismic shaking, the potential impacts due to strong seismic ground shaking are less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. a) iii) Liquefaction occurs when moisture-saturated soils lose stability during seismic conditions. Structures built on such soils may collapse and could potentially result in damage and loss. However, the Proposed Project site is not located within a liquefaction zone (California Department of Conservation 2020). Further, the geotechnical investigation concluded that the potential for liquefaction at the site is very low due to the nature of the onsite soils, and the groundwater depth (deeper than 50 feet) (Leighton 2019). As noted above, as a protective measure from injury and structural damage caused by geologic and seismic hazards, all new development will abide by the applicable California Geological Survey and California Building Code safety standards along with the most recently adopted City and State seismic and geotechnical requirements. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. 76 a) iv) Landslides can occur when strong ground movement such as an earthquake shakes loose soil and causes land and debris to lose stability and slide. However, the Proposed Project site is not located within a landslide zone (California Department of Conservation 2020). Landslide potential in the area of the site is further considered low as it is relatively flat. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. b) Construction, grading, and excavation activities would expose areas of the 2.75 acre Project site to the erosional effects of wind or water for a protracted period of time. Development of the Proposed Project would include construction activities that would expose soils and could potentially result in substantial erosion. Excavation would be limited to that necessary for the installation of building foundations and utilities. All grading activities require adherence to the City’s grading ordinance, which include requirements and standards designed to limit potential impacts to acceptable levels. During construction, the Project would be required by to prevent the transport of sediments from the Project Site through stormwater runoff and winds through the use of appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs). Furthermore, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit). To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, a Project Applicant must submit various documents, including a Notice of Intent and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Activities subject to the Construction General Permit include clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as grubbing or excavation. The purpose of the SWPPP is to identify sources of sediment and other pollutants that could affect the quality of stormwater discharges and to describe and ensure the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater as well as non-stormwater discharges resulting from construction activity. Potential BMPs for construction activities that could be used during the Project’s construction phase include but are not limited to silt fencing, fiber rolls, hydraulic mulch, velocity dissipation device, and construction waste management. With the implementation of the NPDES regulations, Project impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant. Operation of the Proposed Project would not cause substantial soil erosion, since the Proposed Project design would include appropriate drainage systems and landscaping to ensure no soil erosion results from Project operation involving the use of water. Thus, this impact, due to the implementation of the Proposed Project, is considered less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. c) Lateral spreading is defined as landslides that occur on gentle slopes caused by earthquake-induced liquefaction. Subsidence occurs when a sudden sinking of the ground’s surface occurs. The Proposed Project site is identified to be located within an area prone to subsidence due to groundwater pumping (USGS 2020). However, any extraction activities, that could result in subsidence, are not proposed as a part of the Project-related activities. The construction activities planned as a part of the Proposed 77 Project would follow applicable California Geological Survey and California Building Code safety guidelines to avoid the possibility of any subsidence in the area. Further, as discussed in Responses 7(a)(iii) and (iv), the Proposed Project site is not located within a liquefaction zone or a landslide zone; no significant impact is anticipated. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. d) A near-surface soil sample from the Proposed Project site was tested for expansion index as a part of a geotechnical investigation (Appendix B). Based on these test results, the near surface soil is expected to have a very low expansion potential. Given the developed and urban character of the City, no significant adverse constraints related to expansive soils are anticipated. The Proposed Project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. All structures and onsite facilities would be designed in accordance with the California Geological Survey and California Building Code seismic safety standards to minimize the hazards from earthquakes and other seismic activities. No impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. e) The City of Orange Public Works Department, Water Division is responsible for the local network of sewer collection systems throughout the City, and in collaboration with Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) is responsible for the treatment of residential, commercial and industrial sewage in Orange (City of Orange 2010c). The Proposed Project site relies on sewers for wastewater disposal. While the Proposed Project buildings include the construction of kitchen and bathroom facilities for the employees which would increase the generation of wastes and wastewater, the Proposed Project would tie into existing network lines and would not require the installation of septic tanks or other alternative systems. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. f) The City’s General Plan does not identify the Proposed Project site as an area anticipated to contain any unique geologic features or known paleontological resources. However, per mitigation measure GEO-1, in the event that any paleontological resources are encountered during the course of Project development, all construction activity must temporarily cease in the affected area(s) until the uncovered resources are properly assessed by a qualified paleontologist and subsequent recommendations for appropriate documentation and conservation are evaluated by the Lead Agency. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts would be less than significant. GEO-1 In the event a previously unrecorded paleontological deposit is encountered during construction; all activity shall cease in the vicinity of the find and redirected elsewhere, and the City shall be immediately informed of the discovery. A paleontologist shall be retained by the City to make recommendations on the treatment of the deposits. The recommendations shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15126.4. The City shall be 78 consulted on the treatment of the deposits. The City shall follow all recommendations made by the paleontologist. The deposits shall not be disturbed or removed until the appropriate treatment has be recommended by the paleontologist and approved by the City. No construction activity in the vicinity of the find, the boundary of which shall be determined by the paleontologist, may resume until the recommendations for treatment of the deposits have been implemented. If applicable, the final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures shall be submitted to the Community Development Department when finalized. The final written report shall be submitted to the appropriate regional paleontological Information Center within three months after work has been completed. Significance Determination: Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: GEO-1. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 79 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The following analysis is based on the technical greenhouse gas emissions study prepared by Vista Environmental, dated June 22, 2020 (Appendix A). Impact Analysis: a) The Proposed Project would not generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The regulatory setting related to global climate change is addressed through the efforts of various international, federal, state, regional and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to reduce GHG emissions through legislation, regulations, planning, policy-making, education and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for global climate regulations are discussed in detail in Section 6.0 of Appendix A. Constituent gases of the Earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases, play a critical role in Earth’s radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation from Earth’s surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). GHGs have varying global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere; it is the cumulative radiative forcing effects of a gas over a specified time horizon resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to the reference gas, CO2. The GHGs listed by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the CEQA Guidelines are discussed in this section in order of abundance in the atmosphere. To simplify reporting and analysis, GHGs are commonly defined in terms of their GWP. The IPCC defines the GWP of various GHG emissions on a normalized scale that recasts all GHG emissions in terms of CO2e. As such, the GWP of CO2 is equal to 1. The Proposed Project would consist of development of the proposed Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters. The Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). In order to identify the significance criteria under CEQA for development projects, SCAQMD initiated a Working Group, which provided detailed methodology for evaluating significance under CEQA. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use projects. The Proposed Project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, mobile sources, waste disposal, water usage, backup generator, and construction equipment. The Project’s GHG emissions have been calculated with the CalEEMod model based on the construction and operational parameters detailed in Section 8.1 of Appendix A. A summary of the results is shown below in Table 9 and the CalEEMod model run is provided in Appendix A. D D � D D D � D 80 Table 9: Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) Category CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Area Sources1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage2 134.18 0.01 0.00 134.69 Mobile Sources3 128.14 0.01 0.00 128.45 Backup Generator4 1.88 0.00 0.00 1.89 Solid Waste5 3.00 0.18 0.00 7.42 Water and Wastewater6 34.25 0.17 0.01 39.73 Construction7 5.05 0.00 0.00 15.12 Total GHG Emissions 306.50 0.37 0.01 327.30 SCAQMD Draft Threshold of Significance 3,000 Exceed Thresholds? No Source: Vista Environmental 2020 Notes: 1 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 2 Energy usage consists of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. 3 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 4 Backup Generator based on a 125 kW (190 Horsepower) diesel generator that has a cycling schedule of 30 minutes per week. 5 Waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 6 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 7 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group on November 19, 2009. The data provided in Table 9 shows that the Proposed Project would create 327.30 MTCO2e per year. According to the SCAQMD draft threshold of significance detailed in Section 9.6 of Appendix A, a cumulative global climate change impact would occur if the GHG emissions created from the on-going operations would exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, a less than significant generation of greenhouse gas emissions would occur from development of the Proposed Project. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than Significant Impact. b) The Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The Proposed Project consists of the development of the proposed Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters. As detailed in Response 8(a), the Proposed Project is anticipated to create 327.30 MTCO2e per year, which is well below the SCAQMD draft threshold of significance of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. The SCAQMD developed this threshold through a Working Group, which also developed detailed methodology for evaluating significance under CEQA. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use type Projects, which was based on substantial evidence supporting the use of the recommended thresholds. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. 81 Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less than Significant Impact. 82 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area? (f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Impact Analysis: a) The construction activities for the Proposed Project would involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Typical hazardous materials handled during construction include grease, lubricants, fuels, solvents, and aerosols. The Proposed Project would comply with the applicable regulations relating to transporting, using, and disposing of such materials. In addition, the proposed construction activities would be temporary until the end of construction. Thus, it would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. During operation, Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters would comply with regulated usage of hazardous materials typically found in fire stations and associated facilities. Such chemicals are already used at the existing facility, approximately 0.5 miles west of the Proposed Project site, and would be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations and under Fire Department guidelines. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. b) While the Proposed Project will utilize potentially hazardous materials during construction, the transport, use, and disposal of such materials will abide by applicable regulations that will reduce the likelihood of an accidental release that would create a significant hazard to the public. Typical hazardous materials found in fire stations and associated facilities, will be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations and under Fire Department guidelines. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. D D � D D D � D D D � D D D D � D D D � D D � D D D D � 83 Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. c) The Proposed Project site is located within a quarter mile (approximately 1,000 feet) away from the Palmyra Elementary School (Google Map 2020). The Proposed Project would involve the use of heavy equipment during construction that would emit emissions associated with internal combustion engines, i.e., diesel and gasoline. Once operational, the Proposed Project would involve the use of chemicals associated with fire station operations which would be subject to federal, State, and local health and safety requirements. As discussed above in Response 9(b), adherence to all local, County, State, and federal policies and regulations would reduce impacts to a level less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. d) The main Project site, as noted in the Project background, historically housed State and County fire apparatus repair shops, warehouse, offices outfitting and storage buildings along with State Division of Forestry residences and gasoline and diesel dispensing pumps. The facility suffered destruction by fire in the late 1980s, which resulted in a hazardous material discharge (gasoline) in the site. Soil Vapor Extraction method was applied as a remedial measure to mitigate the negative impacts. Presently, the Project site has undergone hazardous material clean-up review to ensure no residual gasoline discharge is present in the site. Thus, a review of federal and State standard and supplemental databases indicated that the two Proposed Project sites are not located within any identified hazardous material site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment (DTSC 2020). No impacts are expected. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. e) The Proposed Project site is located approximately 7.7 miles to the north of the John Wayne Airport in Orange County and outside of the airport’s designated planning area (ALUC 2008). Thus, the Proposed Project activities would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the airport area. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in an impact associated with a public airport. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. f) The construction of the Proposed Project would not involve blocking or restricting any access routes after construction is complete. While the Proposed Project may introduce temporary traffic delays during construction with vehicles entering and exiting the site, these incidents are limited during the construction phase. The Proposed Project would comply with the City’s General Plan Public Safety Policy 6.5 through 6.7 that requires implementing the City’s Emergency Preparedness Program, establish designated evacuation routes throughout the City, maintain and update the Emergency Operations Plan and Fire Department Strategic Deployment Plan. (City of Orange 2010b). The Proposed Project would not interfere with emergency response plans or operations near the sites during 84 construction. As a part of the Project activities, emergency warning systems would be installed along Chapman Avenue and Water Street to ensure safe ingress and egress into the site for Fire Department vehicles. Further, after the completion of the Proposed Project, the presence of the fire station in the neighborhood would beneficially impact the emergency response and actions in and around the neighborhood. Less than significant impacts would occur. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. g) The City of Orange is primarily built-out with the potential danger of wildfires only located on the eastern portions of the City. The Project site not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (CalFire 2007, 2011). The Proposed Project site is located in an urbanized area in the southwestern part of the City of Orange. Additionally, the Proposed Project site contains limited vegetation; and all construction and operation activities would be conducted in compliance with standard safety protocols, which would minimize potential release of flammable materials (including fuel, lubricant, paint, and solvents). Further, after the completion of the Proposed Project, Fire Station No. 1 would assist in efforts to mitigate risk of loss, injury, or death in the event of a wildfire in the City. No impacts are expected. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. 85 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding in- or off-site; (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) impede or redirect flood flows? (d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation? (e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (f) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? (g) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities? (h) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? (i) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? (j) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? (k) Create significant increases in erosion of the Project site or surrounding areas? The following analysis is based on the Preliminary Priority Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by MSL Engineering, dated June 22, 2020 (Appendix C). Impact Analysis: a) The Proposed Project includes the construction of a new Fire Station No. 1, Fire Headquarters, and associated parking lot to replace the current aging and undersized station. The Project site is currently vacant, graded with little to no vegetation. The site of the parking lot is located at a property that includes an existing parking lot, across Water Street from main Project site. The Proposed Project design, including a reconfiguration of the parking lot and addition of landscaping, would result in a 74,021 square feet of impervious surfaces and approximately 13,144 square feet of landscaping (MSL Eng. 2020). D D � D D D � D D D � D D D � D D D � D D D � D D D � D D D D � D D � D D D � D D D � D D D � D D D � D D D � D D D � D 86 As previously discussed in Response 7(b), the Proposed Project would, as a part of the NPDES permit, include the development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to address and control possible stormwater pollution impacts during construction. The implementation of a SWPPP is required for projects disturbing more than one acre of developed land. The SWPPP identifies and requires the implementation of best management practices (BPMs) to control soil erosion and sediment runoff. Post-construction, the Proposed Project operations might result in the generation of the following expected pollutants: suspended-solid/sediments, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens (bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, and trash and debris. However, due to the implementation of best management practices (BMPs), including minimizing impervious areas and maximizing permeability onsite, the impacts from any discharge or runoff would be minimized. These BMPs would include, but not be limited to, connecting all impervious areas to the proposed infiltration system and maximizing permeability, developing a Spill Contingency Plan, designating spaces for vehicle or community wash areas and fueling areas (MSL Eng. 2020). To help prevent long-term water quality impacts associated with land use changes and in accordance with the requirements of the City and consistency with the regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) storm water permit issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (Order No. R8-2009-0030, amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062; NPDES Permit No. CAS618030), new development and significant redevelopment projects must prepare and implement a project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) aimed at reducing pollutants in post- development runoff. Specifically, a project-specific WQMP includes RWQCB approved BMPs, where applicable, that address post-construction management of storm water runoff water quality. As part of the WQMP, projects must incorporate low impact development (LID), site design and source control BMPs to address post-construction storm water runoff management. In addition, new development and redevelopment projects are required to implement site design/LID and source control BMPs applicable to their specific priority project categories, as well as implement treatment control BMPs where necessary. Selection of LID and additional treatment control BMPs is based on the pollutants of concern for the specific project site and the BMP’s ability to effectively treat those pollutants, in consideration of site conditions and constraints. Thus, with the compliance to regulatory requirements and the BMPs established for the Project in a final WQMP, Project construction and operation would not result in a violation of any water quality standard, Therefore, Project impacts related to water quality would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. b) The City currently relies on approximately 20,623 acre-feet per year of groundwater from the Orange County Basin (OC Basin) to meet a large portion of its water demand. Recharging water into the OC Basin through natural and artificial means is essential to support pumping from the OC Basin (City of Orange 2015). However, a review of the Surface Water Recharge Facilities Map prepared by the Orange County Water District shows that the Proposed Project site is not used for groundwater recharge (OCWD 2018). The Proposed Project activities do not involve ground excavation or drilling that would impact the City’s wells or the groundwater quality. The Proposed Project would connect to the existing water lines and would not result in a significant decrease in groundwater supplies nor would it exceed the planned groundwater usage. The Proposed Project would comply with applicable 87 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) procedures and BMPs to restrict the discharge of contaminated runoff into local storm drains. Along with site planning features focused on minimizing impervious areas and increasing permeability onsite, the Proposed Project would include BMPs after project completion to avoid and minimize any polluted runoff from the site as outlined in the WQMP. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. c) i) The Proposed Project would be constructed on a currently vacant parcel in an urban setting and would not impact any nearby streams or rivers. The nearest waterway to the Project site is Santiago Creek, which is approximately 0.67 miles to the west of the site. As discussed in Response 10(a), the Proposed Project would minimize impervious areas and maximizing permeability onsite and all generated runoff from the site will be collected onsite and conveyed through new drain box inlets, that contain Kristar Fossil Filter inserts for initial pre-treatment, to the new stormwater treatment system. The Final WQMP would include other BMPs to address operational concerns of soil erosion, including but not limiting to, developing a Spill Contingency Plan and designating spaces for vehicle or community wash areas and fueling areas. Additionally, the Project would also implement a SWPPP to address the concerns of polluted runoff during construction. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. ii) As discussed in Response 10(a), the Proposed Project could result in polluted runoff due to construction activities. However, the proposed construction activities would be limited to the Proposed Project site and the Proposed Project does not involve the disturbance or alteration of a stream, river, or water body. Further, as noted in Response 10(c)(i), the Proposed Project would implement a SWPPP and a WQMP to address any concerns related to soil erosion and polluted runoff onsite during construction and operation respectively. The SWPPP addresses construction concerns, whereas the WQMP addresses operational concerns. Impacts would then be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. iii) and iv) A geotechnical investigation of the site revealed that the site is not located within a 100- year or 500-year flood plain based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps, nor is located near dams or in an area shown as susceptible to dam inundation by the California Office of Emergency Services (OES) (Leighton 2019). As previously discussed in Responses 10(c)(i) and (ii), the Proposed Project would result in increased runoff due to the construction and operational activities, especially with the addition of impervious surfaces to the site. However, no activities are proposed that would alter the existing topography of the Project site, which is mostly flat, that would impede or redirect flood flows. Further, the implementation of the BMPs delineated in the SWPPP and WQMP, would ensure that the generated runoff from construction and operational activities respectively would be minimized and mitigated wherever possible. Thus, it is expected that the 88 Proposed Project would not result in runoff that would exceed the existing or planned capacities of stormwater drainage systems. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. d) The Project site is located approximately 12 miles from the Pacific coast. Seiches are large waves generated by ground shaking effects within enclosed bodies of water. Tsunamis are tidal waves generated by fault displacement or major ground movement. The Proposed Project sites are relatively flat, located in an urban setting and not located in any flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. No impacts would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. e) As discussed in Responses 10(a) and 10(b), the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management. The Proposed Project would not conflict or obstruct the OCWD’s Groundwater Management Plan because the Proposed Project would not involve the modification of any water systems or wells within the area. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. f) As noted in Response 10(a), the Proposed Project would involve potentially hazardous materials during construction work, which when mixed with discharge or stormwater runoff onsite, could result in adverse impacts and polluted stormwater runoff. However, the Proposed Project would include BMPs and the development of a SWPPP to address these issues and minimize stormwater pollution during construction. Thus, the impacts will be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. g) and h) Post-construction, the Fire Headquarters and the Fire Station No. 1 operations might result in the generation of the following expected pollutants: suspended-solid/sediments, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens (bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, and trash and debris. However, as discussed in Response 10(a), all generated runoff from the site would be collected onsite and conveyed through new drain box inlets, that contain Kristar Fossil Filter inserts for initial pre-treatment, to the new stormwater treatment system. Further, the implementation of the BMPs delineated in the SWPPP and WQMP, would ensure that the generated runoff from construction and operational activities respectively would be minimized and mitigated wherever possible. These BMPs would include, but not be limited to, connecting all impervious areas to the proposed infiltration system and maximizing permeability, developing a Spill Contingency Plan, designating spaces for vehicle or community wash areas and fueling areas and conducting employee-training programs 89 related to the BMP practices. Thus, impacts to stormwater runoff during post-construction activities and during the regular operation of the fire station is less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. i) As noted in Response 10(a), the Project design proposes that all generated runoff from the site would be collected onsite and conveyed through new drain box inlets, that contain Kristar Fossil Filter inserts for initial pre-treatment, to the new stormwater treatment system. A water well is located at the property adjacent to the main Project site, in the Water Yard. The Project would also implement a SWPPP and a WQMP to ensure that any polluted stormwater runoff, generated during construction and operation respectively, will not impact the receiving public water system. The SWPPP addresses construction concerns, whereas the WQMP addresses operational concerns. These BMPs would include, but not be limited to, connecting all impervious areas to the proposed infiltration system and maximizing permeability, developing a Spill Contingency Plan, designating spaces for vehicle or community wash areas and fueling areas (MSL Eng., 2020). The Proposed Project would convey runoff to an underground infiltration system located on the southwest portion of the main Project site through a new storm drain to the west side of Water Street. The infiltration system will consist of 70 linear feet of 8 inch diameter perforated corrugated steel pipe surrounded by 1 foot of drainage gravel. The infiltration system is proposed approximately 100 feet west of the existing water well on the Water Yard. The onsite stormwater runoff is proposed to be collected within new drain box inlets that contain Kristar Fossil Filter inserts for initial pretreatment and to collect large debris that will occur within the parking lot. Since a filter will be included in the proposed infiltration system, the proximity to the existing well would not cause a significant impact (MSL Engineering 2020). Thus, impacts will be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. j) The Proposed Project would generate stormwater runoff during construction and operation of the Fire Station, Headquarters, and the associated facilities. However, the implementation of the BMPs delineated in the SWPPP and WQMP, would ensure that the generated stormwater runoff from construction and operational activities respectively would be minimized and mitigated wherever possible. All runoff from the site will be collected onsite and conveyed through a new underground storm drain system to the new storm water treatment system. The main Project site would be collected and treated separately from the parking Project site. The impervious surface area would be reduced from 82,806 sf in the existing condition to 74,021 in the proposed condition. With the other drainage characteristics remaining relatively consistent in the proposed conditions when compared to the existing condition, this would lead to a reduction in peak flowrates from the site in the proposed condition. The BMPs for the site would include, but not be limited to, connecting all impervious areas to the proposed infiltration system and maximizing permeability, developing a Spill Contingency Plan, designating spaces for vehicle or community wash areas and fueling areas thus minimizing the amount of storm water runoff generated onsite. The two separate underground storm water infiltration systems would treat runoff from the 24hour, 85th Percentile Rainfall depth, determined to be 0.8 inches for the site location (MSL Eng. 2020). Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. 90 Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. k) The Proposed Project activities, during construction, involves ground disturbance and excavation which could generate loose soil. This, along with stormwater and discharges from construction activities, could result in soil erosion onsite. However, as noted in Response 10(c)(i), a SWPPP will be developed for the site to minimize runoff and soil erosion, and properly treat any polluted runoff that is generated during construction. Thereafter, in accordance with the required final WQMP, BMPs would be employed on the site including, but not limiting to, developing a Spill Contingency Plan and designating spaces for vehicle or community wash areas and fueling areas, which would avoid and minimize any polluted runoff from the site during operations. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 91 11. LAND USE/PLANNING Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Physically divide an established community? (b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Impact Analysis: a) The Proposed Project includes the construction of the City of Orange Fire Station No. 1, Fire Headquarters, and associated parking lot to replace the current aging and undersized station. The main Project site is located on a City owned and currently vacant lot, adjacent to the Orange Water Division building and other professional office facilities and residential buildings. The parking site is located on the site of an existing operational parking lot across Water Street. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the existing Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI) land use south of the site, as the main Project site is adjacent to the existing Water Division building; and would not divide an established community. The parking lot use would remain with landscape and perimeter screening enhancements. While the southern boundary of Proposed Project site is in close proximity to residential properties, the Proposed Project activities would not prevent resident access to the nearby roadways, transit facilities, or any other public service and utility, either during constriction or operation of the facilities. No impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. b) The Proposed Project sites, as noted above, are surrounded by the Orange Water Division building, other professional office facilities and residential buildings. The main Project site is zoned Office Professional (O-P) and Single Family Residential (R-1-6), and the parking site is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1-6) (City of Orange 2016). However, as part of the Project activities, a zone change of the main Project site to Public Institution (P-I) is proposed to better reflect the existing nature of the land uses in the neighborhood and to ensure that the Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, with the zone change, the Proposed Project, would result in a more consistent and cohesive land use pattern in the neighborhood. The parking site will retain the same designation throughout the Proposed Project activities. Per City Zoning Code 17.38.050 – Exemption for Public Utilities and Publicly Owned Uses, since the site of the parking lot will not be expanding in size, it is not subject to nonconforming provisions. The Proposed Project would not conflict with any policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Less than significant impacts are expected. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. D D D � D D � D 92 12. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Impact Analysis: a) The Proposed Project site is not identified as being within a significant mineral resource zone in the California Department of Conservation’s Mineral Land Classification Map. In addition, the map notes no other sites in the City of Orange as a State Division of Mines and Geology designated classified mineral resource deposit area (California Department of Conservation 2020). No impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. b) The Proposed Project would be limited to a total area of approximately 2.75 acres in size and would not result in loss of availability of a known or locally important resource. As noted above, no other sites have been designated as a classified mineral resource deposit area in the City of Orange (California Department of Conservation 2020). In addition, no mineral resource extraction would occur as part of the Proposed Project. No impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. D D D � D D D � 93 13. NOISE Would the Project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (c) For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? This section describes the existing noise setting and potential noise and vibration effects from the Proposed Project implementation on the site and its surrounding areas. The following analysis is based on the technical noise study prepared by Vista Environmental, dated June 23, 2020 (Appendix D). Existing Setting To determine the existing noise levels, noise measurements have been taken in the vicinity of the Proposed Project site. The field survey noted that noise within the Proposed Project area is generally characterized by vehicle traffic on Chapman Avenue, which is located adjacent to the north side of the main Project site. The noise monitoring locations were selected in order to obtain noise measurements of the current noise levels in the vicinity of the nearby homes. The noise measurement sites were selected to provide a representative sampling of the existing noise levels in the Proposed Project vicinity. The noise measurements were recorded between 12:18 p.m. on Wednesday, April 1, 2020 and 12:35 p.m. on Thursday, April 2, 2020. The descriptions of the noise monitoring sites and results of the noise level measurements are presented in Table 10 below. Table 10: Existing (Ambient) Noise Level Measurements Site No. Site Description Average (dBA Leq) 1-hr Average (dBA Leq/Time) Average (dBA CNEL) Daytime1 Nighttime2 Minimum Maximum A Located approximately 100 feet south of the southwest corner of the parking site, on a parking lot gate that is located approximately 90 feet north of Almond Ave Centerline. 54.8 47.0 38.5 12:58 a.m. 61.5 11:16 a.m. 56.3 B Located approximately 160 feet north of the Main Project site on a tree that is located approximately 35 feet west of Monterey Road centerline. 64.2 53.2 46.6 10:56 p.m. 68.8 1:48 a.m. 64.0 C Located approximately 50 feet east of the Main Project site on a sign in front of the home at 129 Jameson Street 56.8 47.2 40.1 1:13 a.m. 60.1 9:40 a.m. 60.1 Source: Vista Environmental 2020; Noise measurements taken between Wednesday April 1, and Thursday, April 2, 2020. Notes: 1 Daytime defined as 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (Section 8.24.040 of the Municipal Code) 2 Nighttime define as 10:0 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Section 8.24.040 of the Municipal Code) D D � D D D � D D D D � 94 Standard Noise Regulatory Conditions The City of Orange General Plan and Municipal Code establishes the following applicable policies related to noise and vibration. City of Orange General Plan The City of Orange has developed its own land use compatibility standards based on recommended parameters from the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research that rate compatibility. Using the State’s land use compatibility guidelines, the City has established interior and exterior noise standards. The City’s compatibility standards provide only for normally acceptable conditions based on State recommendations and City land use designations. The City’s Land Use Compatibility standards are presented in Table 11. Table 11: City of Orange Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Transportation Sources Land Use CNEL (dBA) Land Use Designations Uses Interior1,3 Exterior2 Estate Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Low Medium Density Residential Single-family, duplex, and multiple-family 45 65 Mobile home park N/A 65 Medium Density Residential Neighborhood Mixed-Use Neighborhood Office Professional Old Towne Mixed-use General Commercial Yorba Commercial Overlay Urban Mixed-use Urban Office Professional Single-family 45 65 Mobile home park N/A 65 Multiple-family, mixed use 45 654,5 Transient lodging-motels, hotels 45 65 Sports arenas, outdoor spectator sports N/A N/A Auditoriums, concert halls, amphitheaters 45 N/A Office buildings, business, commercial and professional 50 N/A Light Industrial Industrial Manufacturing, utilities, agriculture N/A N/A Public Facilities and Institutions Schools, nursing homes, day care facilities, hospitals, convalescent facilities, dormitories 45 65 Government Facilities-offices, fire stations, community buildings 45 N/A Places of Worship, Churches 45 N/A Libraries 45 N/A Utilities N/A N/A Cemeteries N/A N/A Recreation Commercial Open Space Open Space-Park Open Space-Ridgeline Resource Area Playgrounds, neighborhood parks N/A 70 Golf courses, riding stables, water recreation, cemeteries N/A N/A Source: Vista Environmental 2020 Notes: 95 Land Use CNEL (dBA) Land Use Designations Uses Interior1,3 Exterior2 (1) Interior habitable environment excludes bathrooms, closets, and corridors. (2) Exterior noise level standard to be applied at outdoor activity areas, such as private yards, private patio, or balcony of a multi-family residence. Where the location of an outdoor activity area is unknown or not applicable, the noise standard shall be applied inside the property line of the receiving land use. (3) Interior noise standards shall be satisfied with windows in the closed position. Mechanical ventilation shall be provided per Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements. (4) Within the Urban Mixed-Use, Neighborhood Mixed-Use, Old Towne Mixed-Use, and Medium Density Residential land use designations, exterior space standards apply only to common outdoor recreational areas. (5) Within Urban Mixed-Use and Medium Density Residential land use designations, exterior noise levels on private patios or balconies located within 250 feet of freeways (I-5, SR-57, SR-55, SR-22, or SR-241) and Smart Streets and Principal Arterial identified in the Circulation & Mobility Element that exceed 70 dB should provide additional common open space. N/A=Not Applicable to specified land use category or designation. The City’s maximum allowable noise exposure levels from stationary sources are defined in Table N-4 of the General Plan and reprinted below in Table 12. Table 12: City of Orange Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Stationary Sources Noise Level Descriptor Daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Hourly Equivalent Level (Leq), dBA 55 45 Maximum Level (Lmax), dBA 70 65 Source: Vista Environmental 2020. Notes: (1) These standards apply to new or existing noise sensitive land uses affected by new or existing non-transportation noise sources, as determined at the outdoor activity area of the receiving land use. However, these noise level standards do not apply to residential units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses (e.g. caretaker dwellings). (2) Each of the noise levels specified above should be lowered by five dB for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. Such noises are generally considered by residents to be particularly annoying and are a primary source of noise complaints. These noise level standards do not apply to residential units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses (e.g. caretaker dwellings). (3) No standards have been included for interior noise levels. Standards construction practices that comply with exterior noise levels identified in this table generally result in acceptable interior noise levels. (4) The City may impose noise level standards which are more or less restrictive than those specified above based upon determination of existing low or high ambient noise levels. If the existing ambient noise level exceeds the standards listed in Table N-4, then the noise level standards shall be increased at 3 dB increments to encompass the ambient noise environment. Noise level standards incorporating adjustments for existing ambient noise levels shall not exceed a maximum of 70 dB Leq. For City analysis of noise impacts and determining appropriate mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in addition to the maximum allowable noise level standards outlined in Tables N-3 (Table 11 above) and N-4 (Table 12 above) from the General Plan, an increase in ambient noise levels is assumed to be a significant noise impact if a project causes ambient noise levels to exceed the following: • Where the existing ambient noise level is less than 60 dBA, a project related permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 5 dBA CNEL or greater. • Where the existing ambient noise level is greater than 65 dBA, a project related permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dBA CNEL or greater. 96 In addition to the standards provided above, the City of Orange General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are applicable to the proposed project. Goals and Policies GOAL 2.0: Minimize vehicular traffic noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses. Policy 2.2: Encourage coordinated site planning and traffic control measures that minimize traffic noise in noise-sensitive land use areas. GOAL 7.0: Minimize construction, maintenance vehicle, and nuisance noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses. Policy 7.2: Require developers and contractors to employ noise minimizing techniques during construction and maintenance operations. Policy 7.3: Limit the hours of construction and maintenance operations located adjacent to noise- sensitive land uses. Policy 7.4: Encourage limitations on the hours of operations and deliveries for commercial, mixed- use, and industrial uses abutting residential zones. City of Orange Municipal Code The City of Orange Municipal Code establishes the following applicable standards related to noise. Section 8.24.020 Definitions. The following words, phrases and terms as used in this chapter shall have the meaning as indicated below: A. “Ambient noise level” means the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment, being a composite of sounds from all sources, excluding the alleged offensive noise at the location and approximate time at which a comparison with the alleged offensive noise is to be made. B. “Adjusted ambient noise level” means the measured ambient noise level plus 3 dB (A). Three (3) dB (A) is the industry-accepted threshold of human perceptibility for a change in noise environment. Section 8.24.040 Exterior Noise Standards. A. The following noise standards [Table 13] for fixed noise sources, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential property: 97 Table 13: City of Orange Municipal Code Exterior Noise Standards Standard Noise Level Time Period Hourly Average (Leq) 55 dB (A) 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 50 dB (A) 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. Maximum Level 70 dB (A) 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 65 dB (A) 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. Source: Vista Environmental, 2020. B. It is unlawful for any person at any location within the City to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other residential property to exceed the noise standards identified in Table 8.24.040. For multi-family residential or mixed use developments located within the City’s Urban Mixed Use, Neighborhood Mixed Use, Old Towne Mixed Use or Medium Density Residential General Plan land use districts, exterior noise standards shall apply to common recreation areas only and shall not apply to private exterior space (such as a private yard, patio, or balcony) C. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standards identified in Table 8.24.040 of this section, the “adjusted ambient noise level” shall be applied as the noise standard. In cases where the noise standard is adjusted due to a high ambient noise level, the noise standard shall not exceed the “adjusted ambient noise level”, or 70 dB (A), whichever is less. In cases where the ambient noise level is already greater than 70 dB (A), the ambient noise level shall be applied as the noise standard. D. Each of the noise limits specified in Table 8.240.040 shall be reduced by five dB(A) for impact or simple tone noises, recurring impulsive noises, or for noises consisting of speech or music. (Ord. No. 1-4 § I, 8-12-14) 8.24.050 Exemptions from Chapter Provisions. The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter: • Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said activities take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except for Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday. Noise generated outside of the hours specified are subject to the noise standards identified in Table 8.24.040; • Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property, provided such activities take place between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on any day except Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on Sunday or a Federal holiday; • Mobile noise sources including but not limited to operational noise from trains, or automobiles or trucks traveling on roadways. Transportation noise as related to noise/land use compatibility is subject to the City's General Plan Noise Element; • Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by State or Federal Law. (Ord. No. 1-4 § I, 8-12-14) 98 8.24.060 Special Provisions for Schools, Hospitals and Churches. It is unlawful for any person to create any noise which causes the noise level at any school, hospital, or church, while the same is in use, to exceed the noise limits as specified in Section 8.24.040, or which noise level unreasonably interferes with the use of such institutions. (Ord. No. 1-4 § I, 8-12-14) Project Design Features The analysis in this section was based on implementation of the following project design features for the Project, as noted in the Project Description section. Project Design Feature 1: The Project applicant shall construct a minimum 7.7-foot concrete masonry unit wall that is depicted on the proposed site plan and is located on the east side of the proposed staff parking lot that is located on the southeast corner of the Fire Station Site. Any doors installed in the wall shall be solid doors with self-closing hinges. Project Design Feature 2: The Project applicant shall install a sound enclosure on the proposed emergency generator that is depicted on the proposed site plan. The sound enclosure shall be no less effective than a Level 1 Sound Enclosure provided by Generac. Impact Analysis: a) The Proposed Project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the City of Orange General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. The following section calculates the potential noise emissions associated with the temporary construction activities and long- term operations of the Proposed Project and compares the noise levels to the City standards. Construction-Related Noise The construction activities for the Proposed Project are anticipated to include demolition and grading of both Project sites, building construction, paving of the onsite driveways, and parking lots, and application of architectural coatings. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. The nearest sensitive receptors to the main Project site are single-family residences located on the east side of Jameson Street, which are as near as 60 feet east of the main Project site. The nearest sensitive receptors to the parking site are single-family residences located as near as 30 feet southwest of the parking site. Section 8.24.050(E) of the Municipal Code exempts construction noise from the City noise standards that occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. However, the City construction noise standards do not provide any limits to the noise levels that may be created from construction activities and even with adherence to the City standards, the resultant construction noise levels may result in a significant substantial temporary noise increase to the nearby residents and offsite workers. 99 In order to determine if the proposed construction activities would create a significant substantial temporary noise increase, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction noise criteria thresholds detailed in Section 4.1 in Appendix D have been utilized, which shows that a significant construction noise impact would occur if construction noise exceeds 90 dBA Leq at any of the nearby sensitive receptors. The calculated construction noise results are shown below in Table 14 and the RCNM printouts are provided in Appendix D. Table 14: Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Homes Construction Phase Construction Noise Level (dBA Leq) at: Nearest Homes to Main Project site1 Nearest Homes to Parking Site2 Demolition 82 82 Grading 81 81 Building Construction 76 61 Paving 74 73 Painting 71 71 FTA Construction Noise Threshold3 90 90 Exceed Threshold? No No Source: Vista Environmental 2020 1 The nearest homes to the Main Project site are located on the east side of Jameson Street and are as near as 60 feet east of the Main Project site. 2 The nearest homes to the Parking site are located as near as 30 feet southwest from the southwest corner of the Parking site. 5 dB of shielding was added to account for the existing 6 foot high wall located on the home’s property line. 3 FTA Construction Noise Threshold obtained from Appendix D. Table 14 shows that the greatest noise impacts would occur during the demolition phase of construction, with a noise level as high as 82 dBA Leq at the nearest homes to the main Project site and nearest homes to the parking site. Table 14 also shows that none of the construction phases would exceed the FTA construction noise standard of 90 dBA for residential uses. Therefore, through adherence to allowable construction times provided in 8.24.050(E) of the Municipal Code, the construction activities for the Proposed Project would not create a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels that are in excess of applicable noise standards. Impacts would be less than significant. Operational-Related Noise The Proposed Project would consist of the relocation of Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters. Potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the Proposed Project would be from project-generated vehicular traffic on the nearby roadways as well as from onsite noise sources associated with the operation of the Proposed Project. Roadway Vehicular Noise Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine exhaust, and tires. According to the General Plan, an increase in ambient noise levels is assumed to be a significant noise impact if a Project causes ambient noise levels to exceed the following: • Where the existing ambient noise level is less than 60 dBA, a Project related permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 5 dBA CNEL or greater. • Where the existing ambient noise level is greater than 65 dBA, a Project related permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dBA CNEL or greater. 100 Since the Proposed Project consists of the relocation of the Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters from 176 S. Grand Street to the proposed location, which is approximately 0.6 mile away, no traffic analysis was prepared for the Project, since the Project generated vehicle trips would occur on the same roads for both without and with Project conditions. However, the Proposed Project has the potential to increase traffic on Chapman Avenue in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. According to the Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Orange General Plan, in the year 2030, Chapman Avenue between Cambridge Street and Tustin Street will have 28,400 vehicles per day. According to the CalEEMod model run in the Air Quality Analysis (Appendix A), the Proposed Project would generate up to 1,932 daily trips, which would result in up to a 6.8 percent increase of daily trips on Chapman Avenue in the vicinity of the Project site. In order for Project-generated vehicular traffic to increase the noise level on Chapman Avenue by 3 dB, the roadway traffic would have to double, and for the roadway noise levels to increase by 1.5 dB, the roadway traffic would have to increase by 50 percent. Since the Proposed Project would only result in a maximum of a 6.8 percent increase in traffic volumes on Chapman Avenue, the Project-related roadway noise increase is anticipated to be negligible. It should also be noted that a large percentage of trips generated from the existing Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters currently travel on Chapman Avenue in the vicinity of the Project site, so the actual Project trip generation would be much less than 6.8 percent of the traffic on Chapman Avenue. Roadway noise impacts created from the Proposed Project would be less than significant. Onsite Noise Impacts The operation of the proposed Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters may create an increase in noise levels created onsite from fire station activities, rooftop mechanical equipment, and the backup generator at the nearby homes located as near as 60 feet east of the main Project site. The parking site would consist of long-term employee parking behind a security gate, with only two visitor parking spaces. The parking site activity would create noise levels that would be well below City noise standards. Section 8.24.040(A) of the City’s Municipal Code limits noise generated from onsite activities at the nearby residential properties to 55 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Lmax between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Lmax between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. In order to determine the noise that would be created with implementation of the Proposed Project, a 24-hour noise measurement was taken in the yard at the existing Fire Station No. 1 that captured all fire station-related noise sources, including if sirens were on when vehicles left the station. In addition, a reference noise measurement of operational rooftop mechanical equipment and the manufacturer noise specifications for a 250 kW backup generator have been utilized to provide a complete assessment of the potential operational noise that would be created by the Project. The reference noise measurements are shown in Table 15. Table 15 also shows the anticipated noise level from each source at the nearest residences located on the east side of the main Project site. The operational reference noise measurements and the noise reduction calculations provided by the proposed 7.7 foot high sound wall on the east side of the staff parking area that is detailed in Project Design Feature 1, a 4 foot high parapet wall that would shield the rooftop equipment, and use of a sound enclosure on the backup generator that is detailed in Project Design Feature 2 are shown in Appendix D. 101 Table 15: Operational Noise Levels at the Nearest Homes to the Main Project site Noise Source Reference Noise Calculated Noise Levels City Noise Standards (Day/Night) Exceed Standard? (Day/Night) Distance Receptor to Source (feet) Reference Noise Level (dBA) Distance to Homes (feet) Noise Level1 (dBA Leq) Fire Station Activities (including siren use) 30 55.7 Leq 150 34 Leq 55/50 No/No 67.9 Lmax 65 Lmax 70/65 No/No Rooftop Equipment 10 66.6 Leq 70 31 Leq 55/50 No/No 79.2 Lmax 43 Lmax 70/65 No/No Backup Generator 23 76.0 Leq 200 50 Leq 55/50 No/No 76.0 Lmax 50 Lmax 70/65 No/No Notes: 1 The calculated noise levels account for the noise reduction provided by Project Design Feature 1 of the proposed 7.7-foot high wall on the east side of staff parking area and the proposed 4-foot parapet wall on the roof for the Rooftop Equipment and Project Design Feature 2 that requires a sound enclosure for the backup generator (see Appendix D). Table 15 shows that with implementation of Project Design Features 1 and 2 that the onsite operational noise levels created by the proposed Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters would be within the City’s daytime and nighttime average and maximum noise standards at the adjacent residences as near as 60 feet from the Project site, adjoining Jameson Street on the east side of the main Project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels from onsite noise sources. Impacts would be less than significant. Emergency Vehicle Siren Noise on Nearby Roads The onsite noise analysis, provided above, analyzed the noise impacts from all anticipated onsite noise impacts, including emergency vehicle siren noise. However, there is potential that the proposed relocation of Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters would result in increased emergency vehicle siren use on the nearby roads. According to the Orange Fire Department, Fire Station No. 1 received 16,483 calls in 2019, which equates to an average of 45 calls per day. It should be noted that a majority of calls do not require sirens (typically less than 23 calls per day use sirens). Approximately a quarter of the calls from the existing Fire Station No. 1 travel along Chapman Avenue in the vicinity of the Project site (approximately 6 calls per day currently travel on Chapman Avenue from Fire Station No. 1), so the proposed relocation of Fire Station No. 1 would likely result in an increase of siren use in the vicinity of the Project site by an average of approximately 17 calls per day (i.e., 45/2 = 23-6=17). Section 8.24.050(D) of the Municipal Code exempts noise created from emergency vehicles and Section 8.24.050(L) of the Municipal Code exempts noise created from vehicles operating on public roadways. As such, emergency vehicle siren use is exempt from the Municipal Code noise standards. However, page N-9 of the General Plan details that an increase in ambient noise levels is assumed to be a significant noise impact if a project causes ambient noise levels to exceed the following: • Where the existing ambient noise level is less than 60 dBA, a project related permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 5 dBA CNEL or greater. • Where the existing ambient noise level is greater than 65 dBA, a project related permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dBA CNEL or greater. 102 It is anticipated that the home at that would experience the greatest impact from increased siren use is located at 120 N Monterey Road, which is located as near as 175 feet north of the proposed Fire Station exit driveway on Chapman Avenue. This home/sensitive receptor is the closest distance to Chapman Avenue and is also located nearest to the proposed fire station driveway. Hence this site was selected for analysis as the nearest capture point for siren noise from emergency vehicles traveling both east and west on Chapman Avenue. Noise Measurement Site B that is shown above in Table 10, was taken near the south property line at 120 N Monterey Road, and measured a noise level of 64.0 dBA CNEL. Most emergency vehicle sirens are rated around 124 dB at 10 feet from the siren (https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/2017/04/04/siren-limitation-training/#gref). Based on standard geometric spreading of noise, at 175 feet, the siren noise would be 99 dB. The nearest residence is located behind a row of commercial buildings and Caltrans research (Caltrans 2013) has found that a row of buildings provide approximately 5 dB of attenuation. As such, this would lower the siren noise to 94 dB at the nearest home. It is assumed that the peak siren noise level would last approximately 10 seconds at the nearest home to the proposed Fire Station driveway. Based on the average increase of 17 calls with sirens per day, this would result in a 2.8 minute increase in siren noise per day at the nearest home, which represents 1/508 of the day (24 hour period). The increased siren use would result in a 4.7 dB noise level increase at the nearest residence to the proposed Fire Station No. 1 driveway, which is within the 5 dB increase threshold detailed above. It should be noted, that due to the local nature of the proposed fire station calls, the number of new trips and associated siren use would drop-off quickly as one moves away from the Project site, and therefore other residences in the vicinity of the Project site would experience much lower siren noise impacts than the nearest home to the proposed Fire Station No. 1 driveway. Therefore, emergency vehicle siren noise impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. b) The Proposed Project would not expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The following section analyzes the potential vibration impacts associated with the construction and operations of the Proposed Project. Construction-Related Vibration Impacts The construction activities for the Proposed Project are anticipated to include demolition and grading of both Project sites, building construction, paving of the onsite driveways, and parking lots, and application of architectural coatings. Vibration impacts from construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would typically be created from the operation of heavy off-road equipment. The nearest sensitive receptors to the main Project site are single-family residences located on the east side of Jameson Street, which are as near as 60 feet east of the main Project site. The nearest sensitive receptors to the parking site are single-family residences located as near as 30 feet southwest of the parking site. Section 5.10.3 of the City of Orange General Plan Program EIR (General Plan EIR), determined that a significant vibration impact would occur if vibration levels would exceed 0.2 inch per second PPV at any nearby building. 103 The primary source of vibration during construction would be from the operation of a bulldozer. A large bulldozer would create a vibration level of 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet. Based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest offsite residential structure (30 feet away) would be 0.073 inch per second PPV. The vibration level at the nearest offsite structure would be below the 0.2 inch per second PPV threshold. Impacts would be less than significant. Operations-Related Vibration Impacts The Proposed Project would consist of the relocation of Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters. The Proposed Project would result in the operation of fire trucks on the main Project site, which are a known source of vibration. The nearest receptors to the main Project site are single-family residences located on the east side of Jameson Street, which are as near as 150 feet east of where fire trucks would operate on the main Project site. Caltrans has done extensive research on vibration level created along freeways and State Routes and their vibration measurements of roads have never exceeded 0.08 inches per second PPV at 15 feet from the center of the nearest lane, with the worst combinations of heavy trucks. Fire truck activities would occur onsite as near as 150 feet from the nearest offsite receptor. Based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest offsite receptor would by 0.006 inch per second PPV. Therefore, vibration created from operation of the Proposed Project would be within the 0.2 inch per second PPV threshold of detailed. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. c) The Proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft. The nearest airport is Fullerton Municipal Airport that is located approximately five miles northwest of the Project site. The Project site is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of Fullerton Municipal Airport. John Wayne Airport is located approximately seven miles southwest of the Project site. The Project site is located outside the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of John Wayne Airport. No impacts would occur from aircraft noise. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. 104 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Impact Analysis: a) The Proposed Project does not provide permanent housing or include operations that could result in unplanned growth such as extension or roadways or expansion of existing infrastructure. Although the fire station would include dormitory facilities, these are temporary facilities to account for the nature of fire-fighting operations and the need to provide living facilities. The Proposed Project would not induce population growth as the Project would be a new facility that is intended to replace the already operational fire station and headquarters for the City of Orange. No impacts would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. b) The Proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The main Project site is currently vacant, and the site of the parking lot is located at the site of an existing parking area, across the street from the main Project site. Thus, tenants and residents within the vicinity of the site would not be displaced as part of the construction and operation of the Proposed Project. No impacts are anticipated. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. D D D � D D D � 105 15. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire Protection? ii) Police Protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Impact Analysis: (a) i) The Proposed Project includes the construction of Fire Station 1, Fire Headquarters, and associated parking lot. Implementation of the Project would not involve the expansion of service as it would not induce any additional permanent population growth. In addition, the new facility of the City of Orange Fire Department Station is approximately 0.5 miles from the current facility and, thus, is intended to serve the same service area of the City of Orange Historical District, Chapman University, and stretches of the 55 and 22 Freeways. The Proposed Project would not increase the demand for fire protection or require new facilities; it is projected to improve the response times for the neighborhoods on the eastern end of the service area by one minute. No impacts are expected. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. ii) The Proposed Project accounts for an increased area for the new facilities housing the Fire Station 1, Fire Headquarters and the associated parking lot but does not involve the expansion of service. The Proposed Project site is less than two miles away, from the Orange Police Department on Batavia Street (Google Map 2020). The Proposed Project would not induce growth requiring the extension of existing services or creation of new services; there would not be any increase in the demand for police protection or requirement of new facilities. The area is currently being serviced by the Orange Police Department and would continue to receive the same services as nearby businesses. No impacts would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. iii) As noted above in Responses 15(a)(i) and (ii), the Proposed Project includes the construction of a new fire station, headquarters and parking lot for the Orange City Fire Department to replace the existing facility but does not involve the expansion of services. The Project site is approximately 1,000 feet away from Palmyra Elementary School. The Proposed Project would not induce growth requiring D D D � D D D � D D D � D D D � D D D � 106 the extension of existing educational services or creation of new services. The Proposed Project would not increase the demand for schools in the City. No impacts would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. iv) The Proposed Project includes the construction of new facilities for the Fire Department but would not induce growth requiring the extension of existing or creation of new park services. The Proposed Project would not increase the demand for parks. No impacts are expected. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. v) The Proposed Project would not induce growth requiring the extension of existing or creation of new services. While the Fire Department would have a new fire station and headquarters building replacing its current facilities, it would not induce expansion or addition of new service areas. The Proposed Project would not increase the demand for other public facilities. No impacts would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. 107 16. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Impact Analysis: a) The Proposed Project does not include features that would contribute to the increase use of existing neighborhood, regional parks or other recreational facilities or would cause substantial deterioration of the facility. The Proposed Project would not induce population growth as it would provide an upgraded and larger workplace for an existing workforce. No impacts are expected. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. b) The Proposed Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Proposed Project does not involve the addition of a substantial number of new jobs that may result in increased population and increased demands on recreational resources. No impacts are anticipated. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. D D D � D D D � 108 17. TRANSPORTATION Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (b) Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e. g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Impact Analysis: a) The Circulation & Mobility Element of the City of Orange General Plan prioritizes the issues and opportunities that exist within the City’s transit network, including improved rail and bus transit connections and frequency and implementation of a Bikeway Master Plan (City of Orange 2010d). The Proposed Project would not change any existing roadways, sidewalks or pedestrian paths or conflict with any such proposed plans and would occur within the boundaries of the two sites. There are no bicycle lanes or facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site. The Proposed Project would generate minor increases in traffic associated with short-term construction activities due to the presence and use of construction equipment and vehicles, such as loaders, pick-up trucks, backhoe, water truck, crane, asphalt paver and excavators. The construction equipment and vehicles are expected to be parked within the staging areas of the parking site or areas of the main Project site not currently under construction. Further, the Proposed Project involves the construction of a replacement Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters approximately 0.6 miles away from the existing facility; therefore, it is assumed that there will not be a significant increase in traffic after the completion of the Proposed Project that would exceed the current traffic capacity of the neighborhood streets. The proposed associated parking includes reconfiguration of the existing parking lot across Water Street, including demarcation of the parking spots, addition of secured entry/exit, stop signs and emergency warning systems and landscaping. However, all the Project activities would follow safety and design guidelines and would not result in any hazardous geometric design feature. Implementation of the Project would not result in an impact. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. b) (In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(c), the City of Orange, as the lead agency, will implement the provisions of Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines, when the provisions go into effect statewide beginning July 1, 2020.) The Proposed Project includes the construction of Fire Station 1, Fire Headquarters, and associated parking lot, which would provide the existing workforce with a new and upgraded facility. The D D D � D D � D D D D � D D � D 109 proposed associated parking will be located on the site of an existing parking lot across Water Street. The Proposed Project would not add a substantial amount of new jobs or cause an expansion of service. The City of Orange, as the lead agency, will implement the provisions of Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines, vehicles miles traveled (VMT) thresholds for the purpose of analyzing a Project under Senate Bill (SB) 743, when the provisions go into effect statewide beginning July 1, 2020. Thus, currently, the Proposed Project is not analyzed with respect to VMT guidelines. However, the goal of SB 743 is to reduce VMT by increasing access to common goods. The Proposed Project would not have a significant impact on VMT, as Public Facilities are not considered to result in an increased level of VMT and can be screened out from requiring VMT analysis. Per the OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (2018), some project types have been identified as having the presumption of a less than significant impact. Community institution uses, such as fire stations, can be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary as their uses are local serving in nature. Two transit stops are located on Chapman Avenue, on the northern boundary of the Project site which provide the workforce with alternative transportation to the Proposed Project. Additionally, Orange’s Vision for the Future, as described in the General Plan, states that residential areas will be connected to commercial, recreational, and open space areas, as well as educational and cultural facilities via a balanced, multi-modal circulation network that accommodates vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, hikers, and equestrians. This network will create additional opportunities for walking and biking, thus further reducing VMT all over the City (City of Orange 2010d). The Proposed Project would be consistent with any plan or program proposed to achieve this vision. A less than significant impact would occur. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. c) The Proposed Project would not change the design or location of the existing roadways and would not involve any incompatible uses. Stop signs and emergency warning systems would be installed along Chapman Avenue and Water Street to ensure safe egress from the site. The installation of the emergency warning systems would ensure that vehicles traveling on Chapman Avenue would be aware of any fire department vehicles exiting the site and would reduce hazards associated with the entrance of large vehicles exiting onto Chapman Avenue. When the emergency warning systems are alerted, vehicles traveling in both directions of Chapman Avenue would be indicated to stop to allow fire trucks or fire department vehicles to exit. The proposed associated parking includes reconfiguration of the existing parking lot across Water Street, including demarcation of the parking spots, addition of secured entry/exit, stop signs and emergency warning systems and landscaping. However, all the Project activities would follow safety and design guidelines and would not result in any hazardous geometric design feature. Implementation of the Project would not result in an impact. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. d) The Proposed Project intends to retain the existing circulation patterns (automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle) around the site. The Project facility would have the response driveway on Chapman Avenue, a gated staff and visitor entry and parking on Water Street. The parking site, located across Water Street, 110 would have a secured entrance on Water Street, facing the main Project site. Stop signs and emergency warning systems would be installed along Chapman Avenue and Water Street to ensure safe ingress and egress into the site. Additionally, the Project Civil Engineer, in consultation with Fire Department staff, has implemented industry-standard circulation standards for emergency response facilities into the site and surrounding circulation plan, including ingress/egress points, to ensure the Proposed Project complies with emergency access and safety requirements. The Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 111 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). (b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe. Impact Analysis: a) and b) Refer to Responses 5(a) and (b). The Proposed Project site is located on a mostly vacant property in an urbanized area with land uses consisting primarily of residential and commercial businesses surrounding it. The area is highly urbanized, and any proposed ground disturbing activities would not be expected to uncover native soils. However, due to the sensitive nature of the area, being in close proximity to Santiago Creek, the tribe considers there to be potential for tribal cultural resources onsite. Implementation of CUL-1 and TCR-1 would result in less than significant impacts. As part of the Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation process required by State law, on April 1, 2020, the District sent tribal scoping letters electronically to the San Gabriel Band Of Mission Indians, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Gabrielino/Tongva Nation, and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The letter provided the location of the Proposed Project, the proposed development that will occur, and request to provide comments of the Proposed Project. A response was received from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation on April 17, 2020 requesting a consultation with the Lead agency. The meeting took place on May 28, 2020 and as an outcome of the said meeting, the following mitigation measure was proposed to be implemented to allow monitors from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation to be on-site to protect tribal cultural resources that may be encountered. As of June 22, 2020, the tribe has agreed to the mitigation measures proposed and consultation is considered complete. TCR-1: Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the project site, the project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation – the tribe that consulted on this project pursuant to Assembly Bill A52 (the “Tribe” or the “Consulting Tribe”). The monitor will have experience working with a qualified archaeologist, as defined in the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, and/or education or professional training in a related field, such as anthropology, archaeology or ethnology. A copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Orange Community Development Department prior to the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The on-site monitoring shall commence when ground- disturbing activities begin and shall end when the project site ground-disturbing D � D D D � D D 112 activities are completed, or when the Native American Monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources, whichever occurs first. Ground disturbing activities are defined as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The Tribal Monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be assessed. All Tribal Cultural Resources unearthed by project activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor approved by the Consulting Tribe. If the resources are determined to be Native American in origin, the Consulting Tribe will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized at the Project Site, all ground disturbance shall immediately cease, and the county coroner shall be notified per Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Work may continue on other parts of the Project Site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f). If the resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor to be a non- Native American resource the applicant would be required to implement MM CUL-1. Significance Determination: Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: CUL-1 and TCR-1. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 113 19. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s Projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid wastes? Impact Analysis: a) The Proposed Project includes the construction of the City of Orange Fire Station No. 1, Fire Headquarters, and associated parking lot to replace the current aging and undersized station. The Proposed Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. The Proposed Project site is a vacant parcel in an urban neighborhood with residential, commercial and public institutional uses close to the Old Towne Orange Historic District and would tie into the existing utilities that are provided in the Proposed Project area. Further, the Proposed Project would be congruous to the Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI) land uses in the neighborhood, and it is expected that any change in demand of the existing utilities caused by the implementation of the Proposed Project would be within the capacity that the City’s utility services has projected for the planned land uses. Although the Proposed Project would result in new facilities being connected to the site, nearby uses are connected to these same utilities and the Proposed Project would not result in population growth that would exceed the planned regional capacity. The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) provides wastewater treatment for the City and the closest wastewater treatment plant, Plant No. 1 is located approximately 6.8 miles southeast of the Proposed Project site in Fountain Valley. The capacity of Plant No. 1 is approximately 120 million gallons per day; and the OCSD is responsible for collecting, treating, and disposing the wastewater generated by 2.6 million people living in its service area (OCSD 2020). The new Orange Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters would not induce population growth or cause an increase in wastewater disposal that would exceed the planned capacity. The nearest electrical power facility is Southern California Edison (SCE) Substation on Taft Avenue, approximately 2.1 miles northeast of the Proposed Project site. The nearest SoCalGas natural gas facility is approximately 2.9 miles northeast of the Proposed Project site (Google Map 2020). Although new connections for utilities including wastewater treatment, energy, and natural gas will be added to the site, the Proposed Project will not D D � D D D � D D D � D D D � D D D � D 114 induce population growth or result in the construction of a facility that would exceed planned capacities for the area. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant change or increase in the use of existing utilities; relocation or construction of new utilities is not proposed. It is not expected that the increased uses would be significantly greater than the uses of the adjacent businesses because the Proposed Project uses are consistent with the area. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. b) The City relies on a combination of imported water and local groundwater to meet its water needs, and works together with three primary agencies, Metropolitan, Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), and OCWD to ensure a safe and reliable water supply that will continue to serve the community in periods of drought and shortage (City of Orange 2015). A comparison between the supply and demand for projected years between 2020 and 2040 as shown in the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan shows that the available supply for the City will meet projected demand due to diversified supply and conservation measures (City 2015). While there may be a temporary increase in water usage during construction, it is expected that there would be no significant permanent impact to cumulative water supply requirements once the Proposed Project activities have been completed. In addition, the Proposed Project would comply with local, regional, and state water conservation policies including Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations related to recycling of water, and would include standard BMPs, such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability throughout the site, implementing drip-irrigation system and water-efficient landscaping, in order to reduce water consumption. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in an adverse impact associated with water supplies. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. c) Per the City’s General Plan Infrastructure Element, the OCSD provides for the regional collection and treatment of domestic, commercial, and industrial sewage for the City (City of Orange 2010c). While the local collection system is maintained by the City of Orange, OCSD is responsible for safely treating and disposing the wastewater generated by 2.6 million people living in a 479-square-mile area of central and northwest Orange County and has two operating facilities located in the City of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley (OCSD 2020). The Proposed Project would generate wastewater during construction and operation of the fire station, headquarters and the associated facilities. However, the Proposed Project is a replacement building for an existing facility; it is not anticipated that it would generate significant amounts of wastewater. The wastewater system at the Project location is suitably sized for the Proposed Project, as the wastewater system that the Project will laterally connect into consists of a 30-inch diameter concrete pipe under Chapman Avenue (OCFCD 2000). The new Orange Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters would not induce population growth or cause an increase in wastewater disposal that would exceed the planned capacity. Prior to construction, the City will obtain letters of service from OCSD to ensure that the Proposed Project will have adequate utility services. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. 115 Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. d) The City contracts with private contractors for some services, such as the collection of solid waste, recyclable, and green waste materials and the disposal of household hazardous waste. All solid waste generated during construction would be disposed of by the construction contractor according to the Orange County standard construction practices. Three active landfills are located within Orange county that accept commercial disposal including Olinda Alpha Landfill, Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, and Prima Deschecha Landfill which are permitted to accept 8,00 tons per day (TPD), 11,500 TPD, and 4,000 TPD, respectively (OC Landfills 2020). With each of these landfills available to accept additional disposal, any of these Orange County landfills would be able to accommodate the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project includes the construction of the City of Orange Fire Station No. 1, Fire Headquarters, and associated parking lot to replace the current aging and undersized station, and thus, would not result in the addition of a substantial number of new jobs. Further, the Proposed Project would be congruous to the Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI) land uses in the neighborhood, and any solid waste generated would be within the capacity that the City’s utility services has projected for the planned land uses. The California Integrated Waste Management Act (also known as AB 939), requires each jurisdiction in California to divert at least 50 percent of its waste away from landfills, whether through waste reduction, recycling, or other means. The State law, introduced in 1989, established an integrated waste management hierarchy to guide local agencies in implementation, in order of priority: (1) source reduction, (2) recycling and composting, and (3) environmentally safe transformation and land disposal. The Proposed Project would comply with AB 939 requirements for the diversion of solid waste from landfills. A less than significant impact would occur. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. e) The Proposed Project would not negatively impact the provision of solid waste services. All solid waste generated during construction would be disposed of by the construction contractor according to the Orange County standard construction practices, including compliance with The California Integrated Waste Management Act (also known as AB 939). The Project activities related to the site of the parking lot involves mainly surface reconfigurations and landscaping improvements. The Proposed Project operations would comply with AB 939/SB 1066 requirements for the diversion of solid waste from landfills. Waste receptacles would be provided on site for operational wastes, including green waste, which would be sorted for recycling and reuse. No significant impact would occur. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 116 20. WILDFIRE If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (b) Due to slope prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Impact Analysis: a) The Proposed Project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone of State or Local responsibility (CalFire 2007, 2011). There are no actions that would interfere with an evacuation or emergency plan. The Project implements the Orange City Fire Department Strategic Plan for emergency response. No impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: No Impact. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. b) The Proposed Project site is are not located within an area identified as a very high fire hazard severity zone of State or Local responsibility (CalFire 2007, 2011). Additionally, the Proposed Project site is located in an urban neighborhood with residential, commercial and public institutional uses and not within or adjacent to any open spaces which are identified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. The lack of wildland-urban interface in or near the Proposed Project site reduce any risk associated with exacerbation of wildfire risks. Additionally, the Project supports wildland fire suppression. No impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: No Impact. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. c) As noted in Response 20(a), the Proposed Project site is not in an area at risk of wildfire. The Proposed Project would not require infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk. No impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: No Impact. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. D D D � D D D � D D D � D D D � 117 d) The Proposed Project site is not in an area prone to wildfire or in close proximity to any waterbodies. Additionally, the topography of the area is relatively flat and does not pose a risk of downstream flooding. No impact would occur. Significance Determination: No Impact. Mitigation Measures: No Impact. Significance Determination After Mitigation: No Impact. 118 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Does the Project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects?) (c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Impact Analysis: a) As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, the sites and their surroundings are predominantly urban with limited to no natural habitats. The Proposed Project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment because the quality of the area is not suitable to sustain special status or sensitive species. However, MM BIO-1 has been incorporated to minimize any potential impacts to nesting birds during construction due to their potential presence in the urban environments. The Proposed Project site does not contain any structures of historic significance; and, due to the urban nature of the area, resources of significant archaeological and paleontological value are unlikely to be discovered. However, ground-disturbing activities could uncover significant resources. In the event that buried resources are discovered that were not previously identified, implementation of MM CUL- 1, GEO-1, and TCR-1 would result in impacts to less than significant for archaeological, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources. Significance Determination: Potentially Significant. Mitigation Measures: BIO-1, CUL-1, GEO-1, and TCR-1. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. b) The Proposed Project would include a zoning change of a portion of the main Project site to Public Institutional (P-I) to ensure that the Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and existing surrounding uses. Based on the level of impact to other resource areas within the Proposed Project, impacts are found to be less than significant. The Proposed Project includes a new Fire Station No. 1, Fire Headquarters, and associated parking lot to replace the existing aging and undersized station and is not expected to include additional development Projects. The Proposed Project would not result in cumulative impacts in addition to other development within the area as there are no planned developments. Additionally, cumulative impacts were analyzed with respect to the other environmental impact areas and were found to have a less than significant impact. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. D � D D D D � D D D � D 119 Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. c) Effects to human beings are generally associated with air quality, noise, traffic safety, geology/soils, and hazards/hazardous materials. As discussed in the previous environmental topic areas, the Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to human beings because the Proposed Project would not cause significant impacts to air quality, noise, traffic, geology, and hazards that would impact humans in the area. The Project would provide a net benefit to the local community by improving the City Fire Department’s ability to provide fire protection services. Adherence to regulatory codes, ordinances, regulations, BMPs, standards, and mitigation measures listed in the MMRP at the end of the document would ensure that construction and operation would not results in substantial adverse direct or indirect effects on humans. The impacts to human beings as a result of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None. Significance Determination After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 120 REFERENCES Airport Land Use Commission 2008 Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. Available online at: https://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/JWA_AELUP-April-17-2008.pdf City of Orange 2010a General Plan. Natural Resources Element. Available online at: https://www.cityoforange.org/DocumentCenter/View/571/General-Plan---Natural- Resources-Element-PDF 2010b General Plan. Public Safety Element. Available online at: https://www.cityoforange.org/DocumentCenter/View/573/General-Plan---Public- Safety-Element-PDF 2010c General Plan. Infrastructure Element. Available online at: https://www.cityoforange.org/DocumentCenter/View/568/General-Plan---- Infrastructure-Element-PDF 2010d General Plan. Circulation & Mobility Element. Available online at: 2010e General Plan. Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Element. Available online at: https://www.cityoforange.org/DocumentCenter/View/564/General-Plan---Cultural- Resources-and-Historic-Preservation-PDF 2016 Citywide Zoning Map. Available online at: https://www.cityoforange.org/412/Zoning- Map 2015 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Available online at: https://www.cityoforange.org/Archive/ViewFile/Item/171 2019 City of Orange California – Code of Ordinances. Available online at: https://library.municode.com/ca/orange/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO_ CH17.12GEREAPALDI_17.12.030LI CalFire 2007 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones SRA Map. Available online at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6737/fhszs_map30.pdf 2011 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones LRA Map. Available online at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6739/fhszl_map30.pdf California Department of Conservation 121 2016 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Orange County Important Farmland Map. Available online at: file:///C:/Users/upaul/Downloads/ora16%20(2).pdf 2020 EQZapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application Map. Accessed online on March 5, 2020 at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2013 Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analytics Protocol, September 2013. Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) 2020 EnviroStor. Accessed on March 9, 2020 at https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ Google Map 2020 Google Maps. Accessed in February, March 2020. Leighton Consulting Inc. (Leighton) 2019 Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Fire Station 1 (Sp-4071), 105 South Water Street, City Of Orange, California. MSL Engineering 2020 Preliminary Priority Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) 2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Orange County Flood Control District 2000 Baseline of Drainage Facilities in Orange County. Orange County Landfills (OC Landfills) 2020 Active Landfills website. Accessed June 2020 at: https://www.oclandfills.com/contact/landfills Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) 2020 General Information. Accessed online on April 2020 at: https://www.ocsd.com/about-us/general-information Orange County Water District (OCWD) 2018 Surface Water Recharge Facilities Map. Available online at: https://www.ocwd.com/media/6750/surfacewaterrechargefacilities.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) 122 2020 National Wetland Inventory Map. Wetlands Mapper. Accessed on March 9, 2020 at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2020 Areas of Subsidence in California. Accessed online on March 5, 2020 at: https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED Chambers Group, Inc. Meghan Gibson – Project Manager, Senior Environmental Planner Upasana Paul – Environmental Planner Subconsultants Vista Environmental – Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Analysis and Noise Analysis Persons Consulted Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 123 APPENDICES Appendix A Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis Appendix B Geotechnical Investigation Appendix C Water Quality Management Plan Appendix D Noise Impact Analysis AIR QUALITY, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IMPACT ANALYSIS FIRE STATION NO. 1 & HEADQUARTERS PROJECT CITY OF ORANGE Lead Agency: City of Orange 300 E Chapman Ave Orange, CA 92866 Prepared by: Vista Environmental 1021 Didrickson Way Laguna Beach, California 92651 949 510 5355 Greg Tonkovich, AICP Project No. 19036 June 22, 2020 Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives ................................................................................. 1 1.2 Site Locations and Study Area .................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Project Description .................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 2 1.5 Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project ......................................................................... 3 2.0 Air Pollutants ........................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Criteria Pollutants and Ozone Precursors .................................................................................. 6 2.2 Other Pollutants of Concern ...................................................................................................... 8 3.0 Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................................................. 10 3.1 Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Global Warming Potential ........................................................................................................ 12 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ...................................................................................... 13 4.0 Air Quality Management ....................................................................................................... 14 4.1 Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency..................................................... 14 4.2 State – California Air Resources Board .................................................................................... 17 4.3 Regional – Southern California ................................................................................................ 18 4.4 Local – City of Orange .............................................................................................................. 21 5.0 Energy Conservation Management ........................................................................................ 22 5.1 State ......................................................................................................................................... 22 5.2 Local ‐ City of Orange ............................................................................................................... 24 6.0 Global Climate Change Management ..................................................................................... 26 6.1 International ............................................................................................................................ 26 6.2 Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency..................................................... 26 6.3 State ......................................................................................................................................... 27 6.4 Regional – Southern California ................................................................................................ 32 6.5 Local – City of Orange .............................................................................................................. 33 7.0 Atmospheric Setting .............................................................................................................. 34 7.1 South Coast Air Basin ............................................................................................................... 34 7.2 Local Climate ............................................................................................................................ 34 7.3 Monitored Local Air Quality ..................................................................................................... 35 7.4 Toxic Air Contaminant Levels in the Air Basin ......................................................................... 37 8.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions ................................................................................. 38 8.1 CalEEMod Model Input Parameters ........................................................................................ 38 8.2 Energy Use Calculations ........................................................................................................... 41 Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED 9.0 Thresholds of Significance ...................................................................................................... 45 9.1 Regional Air Quality ................................................................................................................. 45 9.2 Local Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 45 9.3 Toxic Air Contaminants ............................................................................................................ 46 9.4 Odor Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 46 9.5 Energy Conservation ................................................................................................................ 46 9.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................................... 47 10.0 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 49 10.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................................... 49 10.2 Air Quality Compliance .......................................................................................................... 49 10.3 Cumulative Net Increase in Non‐Attainment Pollution ......................................................... 51 10.4 Sensitive Receptors ................................................................................................................ 57 10.5 Odor Emissions ...................................................................................................................... 59 10.6 Energy Consumption .............................................................................................................. 60 10.7 Energy Plan Consistency ........................................................................................................ 63 10.8 Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................. 64 10.9 Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency ......................................................................................... 65 11.0 References ............................................................................................................................. 67 APPENDIX Appendix A – CalEEMod Model Daily Printouts Appendix B – EMFAC2017 Model Printouts Appendix C – CalEEMod Model Annual Printouts Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Project Local Study Area .............................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2 – Proposed Site Plan ....................................................................................................................... 5 LIST OF TABLES Table A – Global Warming Potentials, Atmospheric Lifetimes and Abundances of GHGs ......................... 12 Table B – State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards ........................................................................... 14 Table C – South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status .................................................................................... 15 Table D – Monthly Climate Data ................................................................................................................. 35 Table E – Local Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary ............................................................................... 36 Table F – CalEEMod Land Use Parameters ................................................................................................. 38 Table G – Off‐Road Equipment and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project ........ 42 Table H – On‐Road Vehicle Trips and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project ...... 43 Table I – SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance .................................. 45 Table J – SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance ................................................................. 46 Table K – Construction‐Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions ...................................................... 51 Table L – Construction‐Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions ............................................................ 53 Table M – Operational Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions .................................................................... 54 Table N – Project’s Contribution to Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ................................. 55 Table O – Operations‐Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions .............................................................. 56 Table P – Proposed Project Compliance with City General Plan Energy Policies ....................................... 63 Table Q – Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions ................................................................... 65 Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill Air Basin South Coast Air Basin AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BACT Best Available Control Technology BSFC Brake Specific Fuel Consumption CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board CCAA California Clean Air Act CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFCs chlorofluorocarbons Cf4 tetrafluoromethane C2F6 hexafluoroethane C2H6 ethane CH4 Methane CO Carbon monoxide CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent City City of Orange CPUC California Public Utilities Commission DPM Diesel particulate matter EPA Environmental Protection Agency ºF Fahrenheit FTIP Federal Transportation Improvement Program GHG Greenhouse gas GWP Global warming potential HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page v IPCC International Panel on Climate Change kWhr kilowatt‐hour LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard LST Localized Significant Thresholds MATES Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study MMTCO2e Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxics MWh Megawatt‐hour NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NOx Nitrogen oxides NO2 Nitrogen dioxide O3 Ozone OPR Office of Planning and Research Pb Lead Pfc Perfluorocarbons PM Particle matter PM10 Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter PM2.5 Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter PPM Parts per million PPB Parts per billion PPT Parts per trillion RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SB Senate Bill SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride SIP State Implementation Plan SOx Sulfur oxides TAC Toxic air contaminants UNFCCC United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change VOC Volatile organic compounds Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives This Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Impact Analysis has been completed to determine the air quality, energy, and GHG emissions impacts associated with the proposed Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters project (proposed project). The following is provided in this report: A description of the proposed project; A description of the atmospheric setting; A description of the criteria pollutants and GHGs; A description of the air quality regulatory framework; A description of the energy conservation regulatory framework; A description of the GHG emissions regulatory framework; A description of the air quality, energy, and GHG emissions thresholds including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance thresholds; An analysis of the conformity of the proposed project with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP); An analysis of the short‐term construction related and long‐term operational air quality, energy, and GHG emissions impacts; and An analysis of the conformity of the proposed project with all applicable energy and GHG emissions reduction plans and policies. 1.2 Site Locations and Study Area The project consist of two locations that are both in the City of Orange (City) that include: (1) The proposed Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters (Fire Station site); and (2) The proposed Parking site for the Fire Department. The proposed Fire Station site is approximately 1.52 acres in area and is located at 105 Water Street. The Fire Station site is currently vacant and is bounded by Chapman Avenue and commercial uses to the north, Jameson Street and commercial and residential uses to the east, the City of Orange Department of Water to the south and Water Street and commercial uses to the west. The proposed Parking site is approximately 1.23 acres in area and is currently utilized as a parking lot. The Parking site is bounded by commercial uses to the north, Water Street and the City of Orange Water Department to the east, Almond Avenue and residential uses to the south, and parking lot and residential uses to the west. The project local study area is shown in Figure 1. Sensitive Receptors in Project Vicinity The nearest sensitive receptors to the Fire Station site are homes located on the east side of Jameson Street, which are as near as 60 feet east of the Fire Station site. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Parking site are homes located as near as 30 feet southwest of the Parking site. The nearest school is Palmyra Elementary School, which is located as near as 460 feet southeast of the Fire Station site and as near as 540 feet east of the Parking site. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 2 1.3 Proposed Project Description The proposed project is expected to break ground in January 2021 and be completed by July 2022. The proposed project would consist of development of a 16,574 square foot fire station structure with an attached 11,353 square foot headquarters structure, a 250 kilowatt (kW) backup diesel generator, and 21 staff parking spaces and 5 visitor parking spaces on the Fire Station site. In addition, an approximately 3,780 square foot reserve apparatus building that is currently located on the south side of the Fire Station site will be retrofitted as part of the project. The proposed project would also include development of a parking lot that would include 54 staff parking spaces located behind a security gate that is located on the west side of Water Street. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2. 1.4 Executive Summary Standard Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Regulatory Conditions The proposed project will be required to comply with the following regulatory conditions from the SCAQMD and State of California (State). South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules The following lists the SCAQMD rules that are applicable, but not limited to the proposed project. Rule 402 Nuisance – Controls the emissions of odors and other air contaminants; Rule 403 Fugitive Dust – Controls the emissions of fugitive dust; Rules 1108 and 1108.1 Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt – Controls the VOC content in asphalt; Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings – Controls the VOC content in paints and solvents; and Rule 1143 Paint Thinners – Controls the VOC content in paint thinners. State of California Rules The following lists the State of California Code of Regulations (CCR) air quality emission rules that are applicable, but not limited to the proposed project. CCR Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 – In use Off‐Road Diesel Vehicles; CCR Title 13, Section 2025 – On‐Road Diesel Truck Fleets; CCR Title 24 Part 6 – California Building Energy Standards; and CCR Title 24 Part 11 – California Green Building Standards. Summary of Analysis Results The following is a summary of the proposed project’s impacts with regard to the State CEQA Guidelines air quality, energy, and GHG emissions checklist questions. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant impact. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 3 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard? Less than significant impact. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less than significant impact. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; Less than significant impact. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy; Less than significant impact. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than significant impact. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs? Less than significant impact. 1.5 Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project This analysis found that implementation of the State and SCAQMD air quality, energy, and GHG emissions reductions regulations were adequate to limit criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants, odors, and GHG emissions from the proposed project to less than significant levels. No mitigation measures are required for the proposed project with respect to air quality, energy, and GHG emissions. Figure 1Project Local Study AreaSOURCE: Google Maps.Fire Station SiteNParking Site Figure 2Proposed Site PlanSOURCE: WLC Architects.NL --- - - [ _ _J ( ®1 � I � : i l,=----- 1: - I v, - -- - -- --- - -- - ---- - ------ -- -------..J._ -- -r--@ - --- -- ---- -- - -- -- - 133>,is >131 �M •I " I -----. I I I I I I r- 1 ® I @ � I t--- 1 I I I Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 6 2.0 AIR POLLUTANTS Air pollutants are generally classified as either criteria pollutants or non‐criteria pollutants. Federal ambient air quality standards have been established for criteria pollutants, whereas no ambient standards have been established for non‐criteria pollutants. For some criteria pollutants, separate standards have been set for different periods. Most standards have been set to protect public health. For some pollutants, standards have been based on other values (such as protection of crops, protection of materials, or avoidance of nuisance conditions). A summary of federal and state ambient air quality standards is provided in the Regulatory Framework section. 2.1 Criteria Pollutants and Ozone Precursors The criteria pollutants consist of: ozone, NOx, CO, SOx, lead (Pb), and particulate matter (PM). The ozone precursors consist of NOx and VOC. These pollutants can harm your health and the environment, and cause property damage. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calls these pollutants “criteria” air pollutants because it regulates them by developing human health‐based and/or environmentally‐based criteria for setting permissible levels. The following provides descriptions of each of the criteria pollutants and ozone precursors. Nitrogen Oxides Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) is the generic term for a group of highly reactive gases which contain nitrogen and oxygen. While most NOx are colorless and odorless, concentrations of NO2 can often be seen as a reddish‐ brown layer over many urban areas. NOx form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process. The primary manmade sources of NOx are motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn fuel. NOx reacts with other pollutants to form, ground‐level ozone, nitrate particles, acid aerosols, as well as NO2, which cause respiratory problems. NOx and the pollutants formed from NOx can be transported over long distances, following the patterns of prevailing winds. Therefore, controlling NOx is often most effective if done from a regional perspective, rather than focusing on the nearest sources. Ozone Ozone is not usually emitted directly into the air, instead it is created by a chemical reaction between NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOx and VOC that help form ozone. Ground‐level ozone is the primary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground‐ level ozone to form with the greatest concentrations usually occurring downwind from urban areas. Ozone is subsequently considered a regional pollutant. Ground‐level ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. Because NOx and VOC are ozone precursors, the health effects associated with ozone are also indirect health effects associated with significant levels of NOx and VOC emissions. Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas that is formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely. It is a component of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes approximately 56 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. In cities, 85 to 95 percent of all CO emissions may come from motor vehicle exhaust. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes (such as metals processing and chemical manufacturing), residential wood burning, and natural sources such as forest fires. Woodstoves, Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 7 gas stoves, cigarette smoke, and unvented gas and kerosene space heaters are indoor sources of CO. The highest levels of CO in the outside air typically occur during the colder months of the year when inversion conditions are more frequent. The air pollution becomes trapped near the ground beneath a layer of warm air. CO is described as having only a local influence because it dissipates quickly. Since CO concentrations are strongly associated with motor vehicle emissions, high CO concentrations generally occur in the immediate vicinity of roadways with high traffic volumes and traffic congestion, active parking lots, and in automobile tunnels. Areas adjacent to heavily traveled and congested intersections are particularly susceptible to high CO concentrations. CO is a public health concern because it combines readily with hemoglobin and thus reduces the amount of oxygen transported in the bloodstream. The health threat from lower levels of CO is most serious for those who suffer from heart disease such as angina, clogged arteries, or congestive heart failure. For a person with heart disease, a single exposure to CO at low levels may cause chest pain and reduce that person’s ability to exercise; repeated exposures may contribute to other cardiovascular effects. High levels of CO can affect even healthy people. People who breathe high levels of CO can develop vision problems, reduced ability to work or learn, reduced manual dexterity, and difficulty performing complex tasks. At extremely high levels, CO is poisonous and can cause death. Sulfur Oxides Sulfur Oxide (SOx) gases are formed when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil is burned, as well as from the refining of gasoline. SOx dissolves easily in water vapor to form acid and interacts with other gases and particles in the air to form sulfates and other products that can be harmful to people and the environment. Lead Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been motor vehicles and industrial sources. Due to the phase out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is now the primary source of lead emissions to the air. High levels of lead in the air are typically only found near lead smelters, waste incinerators, utilities, and lead‐acid battery manufacturers. Exposure of fetuses, infants and children to low levels of Pb can adversely affect the development and function of the central nervous system, leading to learning disorders, distractibility, inability to follow simple commands, and lower intelligence quotient. In adults, increased lead levels are associated with increased blood pressure. Particulate Matter Particle matter (PM) is the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. PM is made up of a number of components including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) that are also known as Respirable Particulate Matter are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects. Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) that are also known as Fine Particulate Matter have been designated as a subset of PM10 due to their increased negative health impacts and its ability to remain suspended in the air longer and travel further. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 8 Volatile Organic Compounds Hydrocarbons are organic gases that are formed from hydrogen and carbon and sometimes other elements. Hydrocarbons that contribute to formation of O3 are referred to and regulated as VOCs (also referred to as reactive organic gases). Combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and fossil‐fueled power plants are the sources of hydrocarbons. Other sources of hydrocarbons include evaporation from petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint. VOC is not classified as a criteria pollutant, since VOCs by themselves are not a known source of adverse health effects. The primary health effects of VOCs result from the formation of O3 and its related health effects. High levels of VOCs in the atmosphere can interfere with oxygen intake by reducing the amount of available oxygen through displacement. Carcinogenic forms of hydrocarbons, such as benzene, are considered toxic air contaminants (TACs). There are no separate health standards for VOCs as a group. 2.2 Other Pollutants of Concern Toxic Air Contaminants In addition to the above‐listed criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. TACs is a term that is defined under the California Clean Air Act and consists of the same substances that are defined as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) in the Federal Clean Air Act. There are over 700 hundred different types of TACs with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Cars and trucks release at least 40 different toxic air contaminants. The most important of these TACs, in terms of health risk, are diesel particulates, benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3‐butadiene, and acetaldehyde. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations as well as from accidental releases. Health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death. TACs are less pervasive in the urban atmosphere than criteria air pollutants, however they are linked to short‐term (acute) or long‐term (chronic or carcinogenic) adverse human health effects. There are hundreds of different types of TACs with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes, commercial operations (e.g., gasoline stations and dry cleaners), and motor vehicle exhaust. According to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, the majority of the estimated health risk from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important of which is DPM. DPM is a subset of PM2.5 because the size of diesel particles are typically 2.5 microns and smaller. The identification of DPM as a TAC in 1998 led the CARB to adopt the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel‐fueled Engines and Vehicles in September 2000. The plan’s goals are a 75‐percent reduction in DPM by 2010 and an 85‐percent reduction by 2020 from the 2000 baseline. Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, composed of gaseous and solid material. The visible emissions in diesel exhaust are known as particulate matter or PM, which includes carbon particles or “soot.” Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gases and over 40 other cancer‐causing substances. California’s identification of DPM as a toxic air contaminant was based on its potential to cause cancer, premature deaths, and other health problems. Exposure to DPM is a health hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. Overall, diesel engine emissions are responsible for the majority of California’s potential airborne cancer risk from combustion sources. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 9 Asbestos Asbestos is listed as a TAC by CARB and as a HAP by the EPA. Asbestos occurs naturally in mineral formations and crushing or breaking these rocks, through construction or other means, can release asbestiform fibers into the air. Asbestos emissions can result from the sale or use of asbestos‐containing materials, road surfacing with such materials, grading activities, and surface mining. The risk of disease is dependent upon the intensity and duration of exposure. When inhaled, asbestos fibers may remain in the lungs and with time may be linked to such diseases as asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. The nearest likely locations of naturally occurring asbestos, as identified in the General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California, prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology, is located in Santa Barbara County. The nearest historic asbestos mine to the project site, as identified in the Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California, prepared by U.S. Geological Survey, is located at Asbestos Mountain, which is approximately 80 miles east of the project site in the San Jacinto Mountains. Due to the distance to the nearest natural occurrences of asbestos, the project site is not likely to contain asbestos. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 10 3.0 GREENHOUSE GASES 3.1 Greenhouse Gases Constituent gases of the Earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in the Earth’s radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses. Emissions of CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off‐gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean. The following provides a description of each of the greenhouse gases and their global warming potential. Water Vapor Water vapor is the most abundant, important, and variable GHG in the atmosphere. Water vapor is not considered a pollutant; in the atmosphere it maintains a climate necessary for life. Changes in its concentration are primarily considered a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change. As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to “hold” more water when it is warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a GHG, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal indirect energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a “positive feedback loop.” The extent to which this positive feedback loop will continue is unknown as there is also dynamics that put the positive feedback loop in check. As an example, when water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth’s surface and heat it up). Carbon Dioxide The natural production and absorption of CO2 is achieved through the terrestrial biosphere and the ocean. However, humankind has altered the natural carbon cycle by burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Since the industrial revolution began in the mid 1700s, each of these activities has increased in scale and distribution. CO2 was the first GHG demonstrated to be increasing in atmospheric concentration with the first conclusive measurements being made in the last half of the 20th century. Prior to the industrial revolution, concentrations were fairly stable at 280 parts per million (ppm). The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that concentrations were 379 ppm in 2005, an increase of more than 30 percent. Left unchecked, the IPCC projects that concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is projected to increase to a minimum of 540 ppm by 2100 as a direct result of anthropogenic sources. This Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 11 could result in an average global temperature rise of at least two degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Methane CH4 is an extremely effective absorber of radiation, although its atmospheric concentration is less than that of CO2. Its lifetime in the atmosphere is brief (10 to 12 years), compared to some other GHGs (such as CO2, N2O, and Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)). CH4 has both natural and anthropogenic sources. It is released as part of the biological processes in low oxygen environments, such as in swamplands or in rice production (at the roots of the plants). Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of methane. Other anthropocentric sources include fossil‐fuel combustion and biomass burning. Nitrous Oxide Concentrations of N2O also began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution. In 1998, the global concentration of this GHG was documented at 314 parts per billion (ppb). N2O is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel‐fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load. N2O is also commonly used as an aerosol spray propellant (i.e., in whipped cream bottles, in potato chip bags to keep chips fresh, and in rocket engines and race cars). Chlorofluorocarbons CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane (C2H6) with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the Earth’s surface). CFCs have no natural source, but were first synthesized in 1928. They were used for refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. Due to the discovery that they are able to destroy stratospheric ozone, a global effort to halt their production was undertaken and in 1989 the European Community agreed to ban CFCs by 2000 and subsequent treaties banned CFCs worldwide by 2010. This effort was extremely successful, and the levels of the major CFCs are now remaining level or declining. However, their long atmospheric lifetimes mean that some of the CFCs will remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years. Hydrofluorocarbons HFCs are synthetic man‐made chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Out of all the GHGs, they are one of three groups with the highest global warming potential. The HFCs with the largest measured atmospheric abundances are (in order), HFC‐23 (CHF3), HFC‐134a (CF3CH2F), and HFC‐152a (CH3CHF2). Prior to 1990, the only significant emissions were HFC‐23. HFC‐134a use is increasing due to its use as a refrigerant. Concentrations of HFC‐23 and HFC‐134a in the atmosphere are now about 10 parts per trillion (ppt) each. Concentrations of HFC‐152a are about 1 ppt. HFCs are manmade for applications such as automobile air conditioners and refrigerants. Perfluorocarbons Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower atmosphere. High‐energy ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth’s surface are able to destroy the compounds. Because of this, PFCs have very long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two common PFCs are tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and hexafluoroethane (C2F6). Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 12 Concentrations of CF4 in the atmosphere are over 70 ppt. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. Sulfur Hexafluoride Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. SF6 has the highest global warming potential of any gas evaluated; 23,900 times that of CO2. Concentrations in the 1990s were about 4 ppt. Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection. Aerosols Aerosols are particles emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels. Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by reflecting light. Cloud formation can also be affected by aerosols. Sulfate aerosols are emitted when fuel containing sulfur is burned. Black carbon (or soot) is emitted during biomass burning due to the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Particulate matter regulation has been lowering aerosol concentrations in the United States; however, global concentrations are likely increasing. 3.2 Global Warming Potential GHGs have varying global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere; it is the cumulative radiative forcing effects of a gas over a specified time horizon resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to the reference gas, CO2. The GHGs listed by the IPCC and the CEQA Guidelines are discussed in this section in order of abundance in the atmosphere. Water vapor, the most abundant GHG, is not included in this list because its natural concentrations and fluctuations far outweigh its anthropogenic (human‐made) sources. To simplify reporting and analysis, GHGs are commonly defined in terms of their GWP. The IPCC defines the GWP of various GHG emissions on a normalized scale that recasts all GHG emissions in terms of CO2e. As such, the GWP of CO2 is equal to 1. The GWP values used in this analysis are based on the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which are used in CARB’s 2014 Scoping Plan Update and the CalEEMod Model Version 2016.3.2 and are detailed in Table A. The IPCC has updated the Global Warming Potentials of some gases in their Fifth Assessment Report, however the new values have not yet been incorporated into the CalEEMod model that has been utilized in this analysis. Table A – Global Warming Potentials, Atmospheric Lifetimes and Abundances of GHGs Gas Atmospheric Lifetime (years)1 Global Warming Potential (100 Year Horizon)2 Atmospheric Abundance Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50‐200 1 379 ppm Methane (CH4) 9‐15 25 1,774 ppb Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 114 298 319 ppb HFC‐23 270 14,800 18 ppt HFC‐134a 14 1,430 35 ppt HFC‐152a 1.4 124 3.9 ppt PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 7,390 74 ppt PFC: Hexafluoroethane (C2F6) 10,000 12,200 2.9 ppt Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 22,800 5.6 ppt Notes: Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 13 1 Defined as the half‐life of the gas. 2 Compared to the same quantity of CO2 emissions and is based on the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 standard, which is utilized in CalEEMod (Version 2016.3.2),that is used in this report (CalEEMod user guide: Appendix A). Definitions: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; ppt = parts per trillion Source: IPCC 2007, EPA 2015 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory According to https://cdiac.ess‐dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob_2014.html 9,855 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions were created globally in the year 2014. According to https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global‐greenhouse‐gas‐emissions‐data the breakdown of global GHG emissions by sector consists of: 25 percent from electricity and heat production; 21 percent from industry; 24 percent from agriculture, forestry and other land use activities; 14 percent from transportation; 6 percent from building energy use; and 10 percent from all other sources of energy use. According to Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990‐2018, prepared by EPA, April 13, 2020, in 2018 total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,676.6 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions. Total U.S. emissions have increased by 3.7 percent between 1990 and 2018, which is down from a high of 15.2 percent above 1990 levels in 2007. Emissions increased by 2.9 percent or 188.4 MMTCO2e between 2017 and 2018. The recent increase in GHG emissions was largely driven by an increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, that was a result of multiple factors including greater heating and cooling needs due to a colder winter and hotter summer in 2018 compared to 2017. According to https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm the State of California created 424.1 MMTCO2e in 2017. The breakdown of California GHG emissions by sector consists of: 41 percent from transportation; 24 percent from industrial; 15 percent from electricity generation; 8 percent from agriculture; 7 percent from residential buildings; and 5 percent from commercial buildings. In 2017, GHG emissions were 5 MMTCO2e lower than 2016 levels, which is 7 MMTCO2e below the 2020 GHG limit of 431 MMTCO2e established by AB 32. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 14 4.0 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT The air quality at the project site is addressed through the efforts of various international, federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy‐making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for improving the air quality are discussed below. 4.1 Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency The Clean Air Act, first passed in 1963 with major amendments in 1970, 1977 and 1990, is the overarching legislation covering regulation of air pollution in the United States. The Clean Air Act has established the mandate for requiring regulation of both mobile and stationary sources of air pollution at the state and federal level. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 in order to consolidate research, monitoring, standard‐setting and enforcement authority into a single agency. The EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for atmospheric pollutants. It regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain locomotives. NAAQS pollutants were identified using medical evidence and are shown below in Table B. Table B – State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards Air Pollutant Concentration / Averaging Time Most Relevant Effects California Standards Federal Primary Standards Ozone (O3) 0.09 ppm / 1‐hour 0.07 ppm / 8‐hour 0.070 ppm, / 8‐hour (a) Pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals; (b) Risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (c) Increased mortality risk; (d) Risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long‐term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (e) Vegetation damage; and (f) Property damage. Carbon Monoxide (CO) 20.0 ppm / 1‐hour 9.0 ppm / 8‐hour 35.0 ppm / 1‐hour 9.0 ppm / 8‐hour (a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects of coronary heart disease; (b) Decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (c) Impairment of central nervous system functions; and (d) Possible increased risk to fetuses. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 0.18 ppm / 1‐hour 0.030 ppm / annual 100 ppb / 1‐hour 0.053 ppm / annual (a) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; (b) Risk to public health implied by pulmonary and extra‐pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; and (c) Contribution to atmospheric discoloration. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 0.25 ppm / 1‐hour 0.04 ppm / 24‐hour 75 ppb / 1‐hour 0.14 ppm/annual (a) Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms which may include wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness, during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma. Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10) 50 µg/m3 / 24‐hour 20 µg/m3 / annual 150 µg/m3 / 24‐ hour (a) Exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients with respiratory or cardiovascular disease; (b) Declines in pulmonary function growth in children; and (c) Increased risk of premature death from heart or lung diseases in elderly. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 15 Air Pollutant Concentration / Averaging Time Most Relevant Effects California Standards Federal Primary Standards Suspended Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 12 µg/m3 / annual 35 µg/m3 / 24‐hour 12 µg/m3 / annual Sulfates 25 µg/m3 / 24‐hour No Federal Standards (a) Decrease in ventilatory function; (b) Aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; (c ) Aggravation of cardio‐pulmonary disease; (d) Vegetation damage; (e) Degradation of visibility; and (f) Property damage. Lead 1.5 µg/m3 / 30‐day 0.15 µg/m3 /3‐ month rolling (a) Learning disabilities; and (b) Impairment of blood formation and nerve conduction. Visibility Reducing Particles Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer ‐ visibility of ten miles or more due to particles when relative humidity is less than 70 percent. No Federal Standards Visibility impairment on days when relative humidity is less than 70 percent. Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf . As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with federal nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the national standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution, using a combination of performance standards and market‐ based programs within the timeframe identified in the SIP. The CARB defines attainment as the category given to an area with no violations in the past three years. As indicated below in Table C, the Air Basin has been designated by EPA for the national standards as a non‐attainment area for ozone and PM2.5 and partial non‐attainment for lead. Currently, the Air Basin is in attainment with the national ambient air quality standards for CO, PM10, SO2, and NO2. Table C – South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status Criteria Pollutant Standard Averaging Time Designationa) Attainment Dateb) 1‐Hour Ozonec) NAAQS 1979 1‐Hour (0.12 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 2/6/2023 (revised deadline) CAAQS 1‐Hour (0.09 ppm) Nonattainment N/A 8‐Hour Ozoned) NAAQS 1997 8‐Hour (0.08 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 6/15/2024 NAAQS 2008 8‐Hour (0.075 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 8/3/2038 NAAQS 2015 8‐Hour (0.070 ppm) Pending – Expect Nonattainment (Extreme) Pending (beyond 2032) CAAQS 8‐Hour (0.070 ppm) Nonattainment Beyond 2032 CO NAAQS 1‐Hour (35 ppm) 8‐Hour (9 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 6/11/2007 (attained) Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 16 Criteria Pollutant Standard Averaging Time Designationa) Attainment Dateb) CAAQS 1‐Hour (20 ppm) 8‐Hour (9 ppm) Attainment 6/11/2007 (attained) NO2e) NAAQS 2010 1‐Hour (0.10 ppm) Unclassifiable/ Attainment N/A (attained) NAAQS 1971 Annual (0.053 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 9/22/1998 (attained) CAAQS 1‐Hour (0.18 ppm) Annual (0.030 ppm) Attainment ‐‐‐ SO2f) NAAQS 2010 1‐Hour (75 ppb) Designations Pending (expect Unclassifiable/ Attainment) N/A (attained) NAAQS 1971 24‐Hour (0.14 ppm) 1971 Annual (0.03 ppm) Unclassifiable/ Attainment 3/19/1979 (attained) PM10 NAAQS 1987 24‐hour (150 μg/m3) Attainment (Maintenance)g) 7/26/2013 (attained) CAAQS 24‐hour (50 μg/m3) Annual (20 μg/m3) Nonattainment N/A PM2.5h) NAAQS 2006 24‐Hour (35 μg/m3) Nonattainment (Serious) 12/31/2019 NAAQS 1997 Annual (15.0 μg/m3) Attainment (final determination pending) 8/24/2016 (attained 2013) NAAQS 2012 Annual (12.0 μg/m3) Nonattainment (Moderate) 12/31/2021 CAAQS Annual (12.0 μg/m3) Nonattainment N/A Leadi) NAAQS 2008 3‐Months Rolling (0.15 μg/m3) Nonattainment (Partial) (Attainment determination requested) 12/31/2015 Source: SCAQMD, February 2016 Notes: a) U.S. EPA often only declares Nonattainment areas; everywhere else is listed as Unclassifiable/Attainment or Unclassifiable b) A design value below the NAAQS for data through the full year or smog season prior to the attainment date is typically required for attainment demonstration c) The 1979 1‐hour O3 standard (0.12 ppm) was revoked, effective June 15, 2005; however, the Basin has not attained this standard and therefore has some continuing obligations with respect to the revoked standard d) The 2008 8‐hour ozone NAAQS (0.075 ppm) was revised to 0.070 ppm. Effective 12/28/15 with classifications and implementation goals to be finalized by 10/1/17; the 1997 8‐hour O3 NAAQS (0.08 ppm) was revoked in the 2008 O3 implementation rule, effective 4/6/15;there are continuing obligations under the revoked 1997 and revised 2008 O3 until they are attained. e) New NO2 1‐hour standard, effective August 2, 2010; attainment designations January 20, 2012; annual NO2 standard retained f) The 1971 annual and 24‐hour SO2 standards were revoked, effective August 23, 2010; however, these 1971 standards will remain in effect until one year after U.S. EPA promulgates area designations for the 2010 SO2 1‐hour standard. Area designations are still pending, with Basin expected to be designated Unclassifiable /Attainment. g) Annual PM10 standard was revoked, effective December 18, 2006; 24‐hour PM10 NAAQS deadline was 12/31/2006; SCAQMD request for attainment redesignation and PM10 maintenance plan was approved by U.S. EPA on June 26, 2013, effective July 26, 2013. h) The attainment deadline for the 2006 24‐Hour PM2.5 NAAQS was 12/31/15 for the former “moderate” classification; EPA approved reclassification to “serious”, effective 2/12/16 with an attainment deadline of 12/31/19; the 2012 (proposal year) annual PM2.5 NAAQS was revised on 1/15/13, effective 3/18/13, from 15 to 12 μg/m3; new annual designations were final 1/15/15, effective 4/15/15; on July 25, 2016 EPA finalized a determination that the Basin attained the 1997 annual (15.0 μg/m3) and 24‐hour PM2.5 (65 μg/m3) NAAQS, effective August 24, 2016 i) Partial Nonattainment designation – Los Angeles County portion of Basin only for near‐source monitors. Expect to remain in attainment based on current monitoring data; attainment re‐designation request pending. In 2015, one or more stations in the Air Basin exceeded the most current federal standards on a total of 146 days (40 percent of the year), including: 8‐hour ozone (113 days over 2015 ozone NAAQS), 24‐hour PM2.5 (30 days, including near‐road sites; 25 days for ambient sites only), PM10 (2 days), and NO2 (1 day). Despite substantial improvement in air quality over the past few decades, some air monitoring stations in the Air Basin still exceed the NAAQS for ozone more frequently than any other area in the United States. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 17 Seven of the top 10 stations in the nation most frequently exceeding the 2015 8‐hour ozone NAAQS in 2015 were located within the Air Basin, including stations in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties (SCAQMD, 2016). PM2.5 levels in the Air Basin have improved significantly in recent years. By 2013 and again in 2014 and 2015, there were no stations measuring PM2.5 in the Air Basin that violated the former 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (15.0 µg/m3) for the 3‐year design value period. On July 25, 2016 the EPA finalized a determination that the Basin attained the 1997 annual (15.0 µg/m3) and 24‐hour PM2.5 (65 µg/m3) NAAQS, effective August 24, 2016. Of the 17 federal PM2.5 monitors at ambient stations in the Air Basin for the 2013‐2015 period, five stations had design values over the current 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (12.0 µg/m3), including: Mira Loma (Air Basin maximum at 14.1 µg/m3), Rubidoux, Fontana, Ontario, Central Los Angeles, and Compton. For the 24‐hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35.0 µg/m3) there were 14 stations in the Air Basin in 2015 that had one or more daily exceedances of the standard, with a combined total of 25 days over that standard in the Air Basin. While it was previously anticipated that the Air Basin’s 24‐ hour PM2.5 NAAQS would be attained by 2015, this did not occur based on the data for 2013 through 2015. The higher number of days exceeding the 24‐hour PM2.5 NAAQS over what was expected is largely attributed to the severe drought conditions over this period that allowed for more stagnant conditions in the Air Basin with multi‐day buildups of higher PM2.5 concentrations. This was caused by the lack of storm‐related dispersion and rain‐out of PM and its precursors (SCAQMD, 2016). The Air Basin is currently in attainment for the federal standards for SO2, CO, NO2, and PM10 and the Orange County portion of the Air Basin is currently in attainment for the federal standards for lead. While the concentration level of the 1‐hour NO2 federal standard (100 ppb) was exceeded in the Air Basin for one day in 2015 (Long Beach‐ Hudson Station), the NAAQS NO2 design value has not been exceeded. Therefore, the Air Basin remains in attainment of the NO2 NAAQS (SCAQMD, 2016). 4.2 State – California Air Resources Board The California Air Resources Board (CARB), which is a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, the CARB conducts research, sets the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. The CAAQS for criteria pollutants are shown above in Table B. In addition, the CARB establishes emission standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (e.g. hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbeque lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. The Air Basin has been designated by the CARB as a non‐attainment area for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. Currently, the Air Basin is in attainment with the ambient air quality standards for CO, NO2, SO2, lead, and sulfates and is unclassified for visibility reducing particles and Hydrogen Sulfide. The following lists the State of California Code of Regulations (CCR) air quality emission rules that are applicable, but not limited to all warehouse projects in the State. Assembly Bill 2588 The Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 2588, 1987, Connelly) was enacted in 1987 as a means to establish a formal air toxics emission inventory risk quantification program. AB 2588, as amended, establishes a process that requires stationary sources to report the type and Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 18 quantities of certain substances their facilities routinely release in California. The data is ranked by high, intermediate, and low categories, which are determined by: the potency, toxicity, quantity, volume, and proximity of the facility to nearby receptors. CARB Regulation for In‐Use Off‐Road Diesel Vehicles On July 26, 2007, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 to reduce diesel particulate matter (DPM) and NOx emissions from in‐use off‐road heavy‐duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles are used in construction, mining, and industrial operations. The regulation limits idling to no more than five consecutive minutes, requires reporting and labeling, and requires disclosure of the regulation upon vehicle sale. Performance requirements of the rule are based on a fleet’s average NOx emissions, which can be met by replacing older vehicles with newer, cleaner vehicles or by applying exhaust retrofits. The regulation was amended in 2010 to delay the original timeline of the performance requirement making the first compliance deadline January 1, 2014 for large fleets (over 5,000 horsepower), 2017 for medium fleets (2,501‐5,000 horsepower), and 2019 for small fleets (2,500 horsepower or less). Currently, no commercial operation in California may add any equipment to their fleet that has a Tier 0 or Tier 1 engine. By January 1, 2018 medium and large fleets will be restricted from adding Tier 2 engines to their fleets and by January 2023, no commercial operation will be allowed to add Tier 2 engines to their fleets. It should be noted that commercial fleets may continue to use their existing Tier 0 and 1 equipment, if they can demonstrate that the average emissions from their entire fleet emissions meet the NOx emissions targets. CARB Resolution 08‐43 for On‐Road Diesel Truck Fleets On December 12, 2008 the CARB adopted Resolution 08‐43, which limits NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from on‐road diesel truck fleets that operate in California. On October 12, 2009 Executive Order R‐09‐010 was adopted that codified Resolution 08‐43 into Section 2025, title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. This regulation requires that by the year 2023 all commercial diesel trucks that operate in California shall meet model year 2010 (Tier 4 Final) or latter emission standards. In the interim period, this regulation provides annual interim targets for fleet owners to meet. By January 1, 2014, 50 percent of a truck fleet is required to have installed Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for NOx emissions and 100 percent of a truck fleet installed BACT for PM10 emissions. This regulation also provides a few exemptions including a onetime per year 3‐day pass for trucks registered outside of California. All on‐ road diesel trucks utilized during construction of the proposed project will be required to comply with Resolution 08‐43. 4.3 Regional – Southern California The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin. To that end, as a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and state agencies. South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emission sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of AQMPs. The Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) was adopted by the SCAQMD Board on March 3, 2016 and was Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 19 adopted by CARB on March 23, 2017 for inclusion into the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 2016 AQMP was prepared in order to meet the following standards: 8‐hour Ozone (75 ppb) by 2032 Annual PM2.5 (12 µg/m3) by 2021‐2025 8‐hour Ozone (80 ppb) by 2024 (updated from the 2007 and 2012 AQMPs) 1‐hour Ozone (120 ppb) by 2023 (updated from the 2012 AQMP) 24‐hour PM2.5 (35 µg/m3) by 2019 (updated from the 2012 AQMP) In addition to meeting the above standards, the 2016 AQMP also includes revisions to the attainment demonstrations for the 1997 8‐hour ozone NAAQS and the 1979 1‐hour ozone NAAQS. The prior 2012 AQMP was prepared in order to demonstrate attainment with the 24‐hour PM2.5 standard by 2014 through adoption of all feasible measures. The prior 2007 AQMP demonstrated attainment with the 1997 8‐hour ozone (80 ppb) standard by 2023, through implementation of future improvements in control techniques and technologies. These “black box” emissions reductions represent 65 percent of the remaining NOx emission reductions by 2023 in order to show attainment with the 1997 8‐hour ozone NAAQS. Given the magnitude of these needed emissions reductions, additional NOx control measures have been provided in the 2012 AQMP even though the primary purpose was to show compliance with 24‐hour PM2.5 emissions standards. The 2016 AQMP provides a new approach that focuses on available, proven and cost effective alternatives to traditional strategies, while seeking to achieve multiple goals in partnership with other entities to promote reductions in GHG emissions and TAC emissions as well as efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement. The 2016 AQMP recognizes the critical importance of working with other agencies to develop funding and other incentives that encourage the accelerated transition of vehicles, buildings and industrial facilities to cleaner technologies in a manner that benefits not only air quality, but also local businesses and the regional economy. Although SCAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority to directly regulate air quality issues associated with plans and new development projects throughout the Air Basin. Instead, this is controlled through local jurisdictions in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In order to assist local jurisdictions with air quality compliance issues the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook), prepared by SCAQMD, 1993, with the most current updates found at http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html, was developed in accordance with the projections and programs detailed in the AQMPs. The purpose of the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook is to assist Lead Agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties in evaluating a proposed project’s potential air quality impacts. Specifically, the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook explains the procedures that SCAQMD recommends be followed for the environmental review process required by CEQA. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook provides direction on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts, how to determine whether these impacts are significant, and how to mitigate these impacts. The SCAQMD intends that by providing this guidance, the air quality impacts of plans and development proposals will be analyzed accurately and consistently throughout the Air Basin, and adverse impacts will be minimized. The following lists the SCAQMD rules that are applicable but not limited to residential development projects in the Air Basin. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 20 Rule 402 ‐ Nuisance Rule 402 prohibits a person from discharging from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which causes injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. Compliance with Rule 402 will reduce local air quality and odor impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Rule 403‐ Fugitive Dust Rule 403 governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction activities and requires that no person shall cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust such that dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line or the dust emission exceeds 20 percent opacity, if the dust is from the operation of a motorized vehicle. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard Best Available Control Measures, which include but are not limited to the measures below. Compliance with these rules would reduce local air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Utilize either a pad of washed gravel 50 feet long, 100 feet of paved surface, a wheel shaker, or a wheel washing device to remove material from vehicle tires and undercarriages before leaving project site. Do not allow any track out of material to extend more than 25 feet onto a public roadway and remove all track out at the end of each workday. Water all exposed areas on active sites at least three times per day and pre‐water all areas prior to clearing and soil moving activities. Apply nontoxic chemical stabilizers according to manufacturer specifications to all construction areas that will remain inactive for 10 days or longer. Pre‐water all material to be exported prior to loading, and either cover all loads or maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114. Replant all disturbed area as soon as practical. Suspend all grading activities when wind speeds (including wind gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. Restrict traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less. Rules 1108 and 1108.1 – Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Rules 1108 and 1108.1 govern the sale, use, and manufacturing of asphalt and limits the VOC content in asphalt. This rule regulates the VOC contents of asphalt used during construction as well as any on‐going maintenance during operations. Therefore, all asphalt used during construction and operation of the proposed project must comply with SCAQMD Rules 1108 and 1108.1. Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings Rule 1113 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of architectural coatings and limits the VOC content in sealers, coatings, paints and solvents. This rule regulates the VOC contents of paints available during construction. Therefore, all paints and solvents used during construction and operation of the proposed project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 21 Rule 1143 – Paint Thinners Rule 1143 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of paint thinners and multi‐purpose solvents that are used in thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment, and other solvent cleaning operations. This rule regulates the VOC content of solvents used during construction. Solvents used during construction and operation of the proposed project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1143. Southern California Association of Governments The SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development and the environment. SCAG is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the majority of the southern California region and is the largest MPO in the nation. With respect to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the 2016‐2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), adopted April, 2016 and the 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP), adopted September 2018, which addresses regional development and growth forecasts. Although the RTP/SCS and FTIP are primarily planning documents for future transportation projects a key component of these plans are to integrate land use planning with transportation planning that promotes higher density infill development in close proximity to existing transit service. These plans form the basis for the land use and transportation components of the AQMP, which are utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts and in the consistency analysis included in the AQMP. The RTP/SCS, FTIP, and AQMP are based on projections originating within the City and County General Plans. 4.4 Local – City of Orange Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Orange, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution through its police power and decision‐making authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of air emissions resulting from its land use decisions. The City is also responsible for the implementation of transportation control measures as outlined in the AQMPs. Examples of such measures include bus turnouts, energy‐efficient streetlights, and synchronized traffic signals. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the air quality impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant air quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation. In accordance with the CEQA requirements, the City does not, however, have the expertise to develop plans, programs, procedures, and methodologies to ensure that air quality within the City and region will meet federal and state standards. Instead, the City relies on the expertise of the SCAQMD and utilizes the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its jurisdiction. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 22 5.0 ENERGY CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT The regulatory setting related to energy conservation is primarily addressed through State and City regulations, which are discussed below. 5.1 State Energy conservation management in the State was initiated by the 1974 Warren‐Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act that created the California Energy Resource Conservation and Development Commission (currently named California Energy Commission [CEC]), which was originally tasked with certifying new electric generating plants based on the need for the plant and the suitability of the site of the plant. In 1976 the Warren‐Alquist Act was expanded to include new restrictions on nuclear generating plants, that effectively resulted in a moratorium of any new nuclear generating plants in the State. The following details specific regulations adopted by the State in order to reduce the consumption of energy. California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 20 On November 3, 1976 the CEC adopted the Regulations for Appliance Efficiency Standards Relating to Refrigerators, Refrigerator‐Freezers and Freezers and Air Conditioners, which were the first energy‐ efficiency standards for appliances. The appliance efficiency regulations have been updated several times by the Commission and the most current version is the 2016 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, adopted January 2017 and now includes almost all types of appliances and lamps that use electricity, natural gas as well as plumbing fixtures. The authority for the CEC to control the energy‐efficiency of appliances is detailed in California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 20, Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Sections 1601‐ 1609. California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6 The CEC is also responsible for implementing the CCR Title 24, Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24 Part 6) that were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. In 2008 the State set an energy‐use reduction goal of zero‐net‐energy use of all new homes by 2020 and the CEC was mandated to meet this goal through revisions to the Title 24, Part 6 regulations. The Title 24 standards are updated on a three‐year schedule and since 2008 the standards have been incrementally moving to the 2020 goal of the zero‐net‐energy use. On January 1, 2020 the 2019 standards went into effect, that have been designed so that the average new home built in California will now use zero‐net‐energy and that non‐residential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy than the 2016 standards due mainly to lighting upgrades. The 2019 standards also encourage the use of battery storage and heat pump water heaters, require the more widespread use of LED lighting, as well as improve the building’s thermal envelope through high performance attics, walls and windows. The 2019 standards also require improvements to ventilation systems by requiring highly efficient air filters to trap hazardous air particulates as well as improvements to kitchen ventilation systems. California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11 CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards (CalGreen) was developed in response to continued efforts to reduce GHG emissions associated with energy consumption. The CalGreen Building Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 23 Standards are also updated every three years and the current version is the 2019 California Green Building Standard Code that become effective on January 1, 2020. The CALGreen Code contains requirements for construction site selection; storm water control during construction; construction waste reduction; indoor water use reduction; material selection; natural resource conservation; site irrigation conservation; and more. The code provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. The code also requires building commissioning, which is a process for verifying that all building systems (e.g., heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems) are functioning at their maximum efficiency. The CALGreen Code provides standards for bicycle parking, carpool/vanpool/electric vehicle spaces, light and glare reduction, grading and paving, energy efficient appliances, renewable energy, graywater systems, water efficient plumbing fixtures, recycling and recycled materials, pollutant controls (including moisture control and indoor air quality), acoustical controls, storm water management, building design, insulation, flooring, and framing, among others. Implementation of the CALGreen Code measures reduces energy consumption and vehicle trips and encourages the use of alternative‐fuel vehicles, which reduces pollutant emissions. Some of the notable changes in the 2019 CALGreen Code over the prior 2016 CALGreen Code include: an alignment of building code engineering requirements with the national standards that include anchorage requirements for solar panels, provides design requirements for buildings in tsunami zones, increases Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) for air filters from 8 to 13, increased electric vehicle charging requirements in parking areas, and sets minimum requirements for use of shade trees. Senate Bill 100 Senate Bill 100 (SB 100) was adopted September 2018 and requires that by December 1, 2045 that 100 percent of retail sales of electricity to be generated from renewable or zero‐carbon emission sources of electricity. SB 100 supersedes the renewable energy requirements set by SB 350, SB 1078, SB 107, and SB X1‐2. However, the interim renewable energy thresholds from the prior Bills of 44 percent by December 31, 2024, 52 percent by December 31, 2027, and 60 percent by December 31, 2030, will remain in effect. Executive Order B‐48‐18 and Assembly Bill 2127 The California Governor issued Executive Order B‐48‐18 on January 26, 2018 that orders all state entities to work with the private sector to put at least five million zero‐emission vehicles on California roads by 2030 and to install 200 hydrogen fueling stations and 250,000 electric vehicle chargers by 2025. Currently there are approximately 350,000 electric vehicles operating in California, which represents approximately 1.5 percent of the 24 million vehicles total currently operating in California. Implementation of Executive Order B‐48‐18 would result in approximately 20 percent of all vehicles in California to be zero emission electric vehicles. Assembly Bill 2127 (AB 2127) was codified into statute on September 13, 2018 and requires that the California Energy Commission working with the State Air Resources Board prepare biannual assessments of the statewide electric vehicle charging infrastructure needed to support the levels of zero emission vehicle adoption required for the State to meet its goals of putting at least 5 million zero‐emission vehicles on California roads by 2030. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 24 Assembly Bill 1109 California Assembly Bill 1109 (AB 1109) was adopted October 2007, also known as the Lighting Efficiency and Toxics Reduction Act, prohibits the manufacturing of lights after January 1, 2010 that contain levels of hazardous substances prohibited by the European Union pursuant to the RoHS Directive. AB 1109 also requires reductions in energy usage for lighting and is structured to reduce lighting electrical consumption by: (1) At least 50 percent reduction from 2007 levels for indoor residential lighting; and (2) At least 25 percent reduction from 2007 levels for indoor commercial and all outdoor lighting by 2018. AB 1109 would reduce GHG emissions through reducing the amount of electricity required to be generated by fossil fuels in California. Assembly Bill 1493 California Assembly Bill 1493 (also known as the Pavley Bill, in reference to its author Fran Pavley) was enacted on July 22, 2002 and required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. In 2004, CARB approved the “Pavley I” regulations limiting the amount of GHGs that may be released from new passenger automobiles that are being phased in between model years 2009 through 2016. These regulations will reduce GHG emissions by 30 percent from 2002 levels by 2016. In June 2009, the EPA granted California the authority to implement GHG emission reduction standards for light duty vehicles, in September 2009, amendments to the Pavley I regulations were adopted by CARB and implementation of the “Pavley I” regulations started in 2009. The second set of regulations “Pavley II” was developed in 2010, and is being phased in between model years 2017 through 2025 with the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 45 percent by the year 2020 as compared to the 2002 fleet. The Pavley II standards were developed by linking the GHG emissions and formerly separate toxic tailpipe emissions standards previously known as the “LEV III” (third stage of the Low Emission Vehicle standards) into a single regulatory framework. The new rules reduce emissions from gasoline‐powered cars as well as promote zero‐emissions auto technologies such as electricity and hydrogen, and through increasing the infrastructure for fueling hydrogen vehicles. In 2009, the U.S. EPA granted California the authority to implement the GHG standards for passenger cars, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles and these GHG emissions standards are currently being implemented nationwide. However, EPA has performed a midterm evaluation of the longer‐term standards for model years 2022‐ 2025, and based on the findings of this midterm evaluation, the EPA has proposed to amend the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) and GHG emissions standards for light vehicles for model years 2021 through 2026. The EPA’s proposed amendments do not include any extension of the legal waiver granted to California by the 1970 Clean Air Act and which has allowed the State to set tighter standards for vehicle pipe emissions than the EPA standards. On September 20, 2019, California filed suit over the EPA decision to revoke California’s legal waiver that has been joined by 22 other states. 5.2 Local ‐ City of Orange The City of Orange General Plan, Natural Resources and Infrastructure Elements, March 2010, provides an Energy Resources Component that details the following applicable goals and policies. NR Goal 2.0: Protect air, water, and energy resources from pollution and overuse. Policy 2.1 Cooperate with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and other regional agencies to implement and enforce regional air quality management plans. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 25 Policy 2.2 Support alternative transportation modes, alternative technologies, and bicycle‐ and pedestrian‐friendly neighborhoods to reduce emissions related to vehicular travel. Policy 2.6 Encourage sustainable building and site designs for new construction and renovation projects. Policy 2.7 Coordinate with energy suppliers to ensure adequate energy supplies to meet community needs, and to promote energy conservation and public education programs for that purpose. Policy 2.9 Promote City operations as a model for energy efficiency and green building. Policy 2.10 Work toward replacing existing City vehicles with ultra low or zero emission vehicles. At a minimum, new City vehicles shall be low emission vehicles as defined by the California Air Resources Board, except if certain vehicle types are not available in the marketplace. Public safety vehicles are exempted from this requirement. INF Goal 3.0: Ensure adequate maintenance of public rights‐of‐way to enhance public safety and improve circulation. Policy 3.4 Investigate the feasibility of using energy‐efficient street lights to conserve energy. INF Goal 4.0: Ensure adequate provision of electricity, natural gas, telephone and data services and cable television. Policy 4.4 Encourage integrated and cost‐effective design and technology features within new development to minimize demands on dry utility networks. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 26 6.0 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE MANAGEMENT The regulatory setting related to global climate change is addressed through the efforts of various international, federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to reduce GHG emissions through legislation, regulations, planning, policy‐making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for global climate change regulations are discussed below. 6.1 International In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to evaluate the impacts of global climate change and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United States joined other countries around the world in signing the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreement with the goal of controlling GHG emissions. The parties of the UNFCCC adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which set binding GHG reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries, the objective of reducing their collective GHG emissions by five percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 182 countries, but has not been ratified by the United States. It should be noted that Japan and Canada opted out of the Kyoto Protocol and the remaining developed countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol have not met their Kyoto targets. The Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012 and the amendment for the second commitment period from 2013 to 2020 has not yet entered into legal force. The Parties to the Kyoto Protocol negotiated the Paris Agreement in December 2015, agreeing to set a goal of limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius compared with pre‐industrial levels. The Paris Agreement has been adopted by 195 nations with 147 ratifying it, including the United States by President Obama, who ratified it by Executive Order on September 3, 2016. On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced that the United States is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, however the Paris Agreement is still legally binding by the other remaining nations. Additionally, the Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. The Montreal Protocol stipulates that the production and consumption of compounds that deplete ozone in the stratosphere—CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform—were to be phased out, with the first three by the year 2000 and methyl chloroform by 2005. 6.2 Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for implementing federal policy to address global climate change. The Federal government administers a wide array of public‐private partnerships to reduce U.S. GHG intensity. These programs focus on energy efficiency, renewable energy, methane, and other non‐CO2 gases, agricultural practices and implementation of technologies to achieve GHG reductions. EPA implements several voluntary programs that substantially contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (Docket No. 05–1120), argued November 29, 2006 and decided April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held that not only did the EPA have authority to regulate greenhouse gases, but the EPA's reasons for not regulating this area did not fit the statutory requirements. As such, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA should be required to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 27 In response to the FY2008 Consolidations Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764; Public Law 110‐161), EPA proposed a rule on March 10, 2009 that requires mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from large sources in the United States. On September 22, 2009, the Final Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule was signed and published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009. The rule became effective on December 29, 2009. This rule requires suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions to submit annual reports to EPA. On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. One is an endangerment finding that finds concentrations of the six GHGs in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. The other is a cause or contribute finding, that finds emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare. These actions did not impose any requirements on industry or other entities, however, since 2009 the EPA has been providing GHG emission standards for vehicles and other stationary sources of GHG emissions that are regulated by the EPA. On September 13, 2013 the EPA Administrator signed 40 CFR Part 60, that limits emissions from new sources to 1,100 pounds of CO2 per MWh for fossil fuel‐fired utility boilers and 1,000 pounds of CO2 per MWh for large natural gas‐fired combustion units. On August 3, 2015, the EPA announced the Clean Power Plan, emissions guidelines for U.S. states to follow in developing plans to reduce GHG emissions from existing fossil fuel‐fired power plants (Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 205, October 23 2015). On October 11, 2017, the EPA issued a formal proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan and on June 19, 2019 the EPA replaced the Clean Power Plan with the Affordable Clean Energy rule that is anticipated to lower power sector GHG emissions by 11 million tons by the year 2030. 6.3 State The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has the primary responsible for implementing state policy to address global climate change, however there are State regulations related to global climate change that affect a variety of State agencies. CARB, which is a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both the federal and state air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, the CARB conducts research, sets California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. In addition, the CARB establishes emission standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (e.g. hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbeque lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. In 2008, CARB approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan that proposes a “comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon GHG emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health” (CARB 2008). The Climate Change Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions which include direct regulations; alternative compliance mechanisms; monetary and non‐monetary incentives; voluntary actions; market‐based mechanisms such as a cap‐and‐trade system. In 2014, CARB approved the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB, 2014) that identifies additional strategies moving beyond the 2020 targets to the year 2050. On December 14, 2017 CARB adopted the California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017 (CARB, 2017) that provides specific statewide policies and measures to achieve the 2030 GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and the Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 28 aspirational 2050 GHG reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In addition, the State has passed the following laws directing CARB to develop actions to reduce GHG emissions, which are listed below in chronological order, with the most current first. California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6 The Title 24 Part 6 standards have been developed by the CEC primarily for energy conservation and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management. It should be noted that implementation of the Title 24 Part 6 building standards would also reduce GHG emissions, since energy usage is the primary source of human generated GHG emissions. California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11 The CalGreen Building standards have been developed by the CEC primarily for energy conservation and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management. It should be noted that implementation of the CalGreen Building standards would also reduce GHG emissions, since energy usage is the primary source of human generated GHG emissions. Senate Bill 100 SB 100 requires that by December 1, 2045 that 100 percent of retail sales of electricity to be generated from renewable or zero‐carbon emission sources of electricity and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management. Executive Order B‐48‐18 and Assembly Bill 2127 Executive Order B‐48‐18 and AB 2127 provides measures to put at least five million zero‐emission vehicles on California roads by 2030 and to install 200 hydrogen fueling stations and 250,000 electric vehicle chargers by 2025 and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management. Executive Order B‐30‐15, Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 The California Governor issued Executive Order B‐30‐15 on April 29, 2015 that aims to reduce California’s GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. This executive order aligns California’s GHG reduction targets with those of other international governments, such as the European Union that set the same target for 2030 in October, 2014. This target will make it possible to reach the ultimate goal of reducing GHG emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050 that is based on scientifically established levels needed in the U.S.A to limit global warming below 2 degrees Celsius – the warming threshold at which scientists say there will likely be major climate disruptions such as super droughts and rising sea levels. Assembly Bill 197 (AB 197) (September 8, 2016) and Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) (September 8, 2016) codified into statute the GHG emissions reduction targets of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 as detailed in Executive Order B‐30‐15. AB 197 also requires additional GHG emissions reporting that is broken down to sub‐county levels and requires CARB to consider the social costs of emissions impacting disadvantaged communities. Executive Order B‐29‐15 The California Governor issued Executive Order B‐29‐15 on April 1, 2015 and directed the State Water Resources Control Board to impose restrictions to achieve a statewide 25% reduction in urban water usage and directed the Department of Water Resources to replace 50 million square feet of lawn with drought tolerant landscaping through an update to the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 29 Ordinance. The Ordinance also requires installation of more efficient irrigation systems, promotion of greywater usage and onsite stormwater capture, and limits the turf planted in new residential landscapes to 25 percent of the total area and restricts turf from being planted in median strips or in parkways unless the parkway is next to a parking strip and a flat surface is required to enter and exit vehicles. Executive Order B‐29‐15 would reduce GHG emissions associated with the energy used to transport and filter water. Assembly Bill 341 and Senate Bills 939 and 1374 Senate Bill 939 (SB 939) requires that each jurisdiction in California to divert at least 50 percent of its waste away from landfills, whether through waste reduction, recycling or other means. Senate Bill 1374 (SB 1374) requires the California Integrated Waste Management Board to adopt a model ordinance by March 1, 2004 suitable for adoption by any local agency to require 50 to 75 percent diversion of construction and demolition of waste materials from landfills. Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341) was adopted in 2011 and builds upon the waste reduction measures of SB 939 and 1374, and sets a new target of a 75 percent reduction in solid waste generated by the year 2020. Senate Bill 375 Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) was adopted September 2008 in order to support the State’s climate action goals to reduce GHG emissions through coordinated regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG emission reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires CARB to set regional targets for GHG emissions reductions from passenger vehicle use. In 2010, CARB established targets for 2020 and 2035 for each Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) within the State. It was up to each MPO to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPOs Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to meet CARB’s 2020 and 2035 GHG emission reduction targets. These reduction targets are required to be updated every eight years and the most current targets are detailed at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our‐work/programs/sustainable‐communities‐program/regional‐ plan‐targets, which provides GHG emissions reduction targets for SCAG of 8 percent by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035. The 2016‐2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), adopted by SCAG April, 2016 provides a 2020 GHG emission reduction target of 8 percent and a 2035 GHG emission reduction target of 18 percent. SCAG will need to develop additional strategies in its next revision of the RTP/SCS in order to meet CARB’s new 19 percent GHG emission reduction target for 2035. CARB is also charged with reviewing SCAG’s RTP/SCS for consistency with its assigned targets. City and County land use policies, including General Plans, are not required to be consistent with the RTP and associated SCS. However, new provisions of CEQA incentivize, through streamlining and other provisions, qualified projects that are consistent with an approved SCS and categorized as “transit priority projects.” Assembly Bill 1109 AB 1109 requires reductions in energy usage for lighting and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 30 Executive Order S‐1‐07 Executive Order S‐1‐07 was issued in 2007 and proclaims that the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in the State, since it generates more than 40 percent of the State’s GHG emissions. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in the State by at least ten percent by 2020. This Executive Order also directs CARB to determine whether this Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) could be adopted as a discrete early‐action measure as part of the effort to meet the mandates in AB 32. In 2009 CARB approved the proposed regulation to implement the LCFS. The standard was challenged in the courts, but has been in effect since 2011 and was re‐approved by the CARB in 2015. The LCFS is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions by about 16 MMT per year by 2020. The LCFS is designed to provide a framework that uses market mechanisms to spur the steady introduction of lower carbon fuels. The framework establishes performance standards that fuel producers and importers must meet annually. Reformulated gasoline mixed with corn‐derived ethanol and low‐sulfur diesel fuel represent the baseline fuels. Lower carbon fuels may be ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, or blends of these fuels with gasoline or diesel. Compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas also may be low‐carbon fuels. Hydrogen and electricity, when used in fuel cells or electric vehicles, are also considered as low‐carbon fuels. Senate Bill 97 Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) was adopted August 2007 and acknowledges that climate change is a prominent environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. SB 97 directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which is part of the State Natural Resources Agency, to prepare, develop, and transmit to CARB guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, as required by CEQA, by July 1, 2009. The Natural Resources Agency was required to certify and adopt those guidelines by January 1, 2010. Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97 as stated above, on December 30, 2009 the Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the State CEQA guidelines that addresses GHG emissions. The CEQA Guidelines Amendments changed 14 sections of the CEQA Guidelines and incorporated GHG language throughout the Guidelines. However, no GHG emissions thresholds of significance were provided and no specific mitigation measures were identified. The GHG emission reduction amendments went into effect on March 18, 2010 and are summarized below: Climate Action Plans and other greenhouse gas reduction plans can be used to determine whether a project has significant impacts, based upon its compliance with the plan. Local governments are encouraged to quantify the GHG emissions of proposed projects, noting that they have the freedom to select the models and methodologies that best meet their needs and circumstances. The section also recommends consideration of several qualitative factors that may be used in the determination of significance, such as the extent to which the given project complies with state, regional, or local GHG reduction plans and policies. OPR does not set or dictate specific thresholds of significance. Consistent with existing CEQA Guidelines, OPR encourages local governments to develop and publish their own thresholds of significance for GHG impacts assessment. When creating their own thresholds of significance, local governments may consider the thresholds of significance adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 31 New amendments include guidelines for determining methods to mitigate the effects of GHG emissions in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. OPR is clear to state that “to qualify as mitigation, specific measures from an existing plan must be identified and incorporated into the project; general compliance with a plan, by itself, is not mitigation.” OPR’s emphasizes the advantages of analyzing GHG impacts on an institutional, programmatic level. OPR therefore approves tiering of environmental analyses and highlights some benefits of such an approach. Environmental impact reports must specifically consider a project's energy use and energy efficiency potential. Assembly Bill 32 In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires CARB, to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 through an enforceable statewide emission cap which will be phased in starting in 2012. Emission reductions shall include carbon sequestration projects that would remove carbon from the atmosphere and utilize best management practices that are technologically feasible and cost effective. In 2007 CARB released the calculated Year 1990 GHG emissions of 431 million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e). The 2020 target of 431 MMTCO2e requires the reduction of 78 MMTCO2e, or approximately 16 percent from the State’s projected 2020 business as usual emissions of 509 MMTCO2e (CARB, 2014). Under AB 32, CARB was required to adopt regulations by January 1, 2011 to achieve reductions in GHGs to meet the 1990 cap by 2020. Early measures CARB took to lower GHG emissions included requiring operators of the largest industrial facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons of CO2 in a calendar year to submit verification of GHG emissions by December 1, 2010. The CARB Board also approved nine discrete early action measures that include regulations affecting landfills, motor vehicle fuels, refrigerants in cars, port operations and other sources, all of which became enforceable on or before January 1, 2010. CARB’s Scoping Plan that was adopted in 2009, proposes a variety of measures including: strengthening energy efficiency and building standards; targeted fees on water and energy use; a market‐based cap‐ and‐trade system; achieving a 33 percent renewable energy mix; and a fee regulation to fund the program. The 2014 update to the Scoping Plan identifies strategies moving beyond the 2020 targets to the year 2050. The Cap and Trade Program established under the Scoping Plan sets a statewide limit on sources responsible for 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions, and has established a market for long‐term investment in energy efficiency and cleaner fuels since 2012. Executive Order S‐3‐05 In 2005 the California Governor issued Executive Order S 3‐05, GHG Emission, which established the following reduction targets: 2010: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels; 2020: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels; Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 32 2050: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The Executive Order directed the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to coordinate a multi‐agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. To comply with the Executive Order, the secretary of CalEPA created the California Climate Action Team (CAT), made up of members from various state agencies and commissions. The team released its first report in March 2006. The report proposed to achieve the targets by building on the voluntary actions of businesses, local governments, and communities and through State incentive and regulatory programs. The State achieved its first goal of reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. Assembly Bill 1493 AB 1493 or the Pavley Bill sets tailpipe GHG emissions limits for passenger vehicles in California as well as fuel economy standards and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management. 6.4 Regional – Southern California The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin. To that end, as a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and state agencies. South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emission sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources. The SCAQMD is also responsible for GHG emissions for projects where it is the lead agency. However, for other projects in the SCAB where it is not the lead agency, it is limited to providing resources to other lead agencies in order to assist them in determining GHG emission thresholds and GHG reduction measures. In order to assist local agencies with direction on GHG emissions, the SCAQMD organized a working group and adopted Rules 2700, 2701, and 2702, which are described below. SCAQMD Working Group Since neither CARB nor the OPR has developed GHG emissions threshold, the SCAQMD formed a Working Group to develop significance thresholds related to GHG emissions. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that either provides a quantitative annual thresholds of 3,500 MTCO2e for residential uses, 1,400 MTCO2e for commercial uses, and 3,000 MTCO2e for mixed uses. An alternative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use types is also proposed. Southern California Association of Governments The SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development and the environment. SCAG is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the majority of the southern California region and is the largest MPO in the nation. With respect to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the 2016‐2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), adopted April, 2016 and the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 33 Program (FTIP), adopted October 2013, which addresses regional development and growth forecasts. Although the RTP/SCS and FTIP are primarily planning documents for future transportation projects a key component of these plans are to integrate land use planning with transportation planning that promotes higher density infill development in close proximity to existing transit service. These plans form the basis for the land use and transportation components of the AQMP, which are utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts and in the consistency analysis included in the AQMP. The RTP/SCS, FTIP, and AQMP are based on projections originating within the City and County General Plans. 6.5 Local – City of Orange Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Orange (City), have the authority and responsibility to reduce GHG emissions through their police power and decision‐making authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of GHG emissions resulting from its land use decisions. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the global climate change potential of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant global climate change impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation. In order to meet the State GHG emissions reduction goals, the City has developed the City of Orange Local CEQA Guidelines, April 11, 2006 and the Greenhouse Gas Emission (GHG) Analysis – Interim Guidance Memo (GHG Interim Guidance Memo), September 30, 2008. The GHG Interim Guidance Memo provides a GHG emission significance threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2e (MTCO2e) per year to determine the significance of an individual project’s contribution to the global GHG emissions environment. This threshold has also been utilized and adopted as an interim GHG emission threshold in the Orange General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report, March 2010. This threshold is defined as interim since it shall be preempted when the SCAQMD adopts GHG emissions thresholds for all projects. Currently, SCAQMD has only adopted a GHG emission threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e for industrial projects where SCAQMD is the lead agency. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 34 7.0 ATMOSPHERIC SETTING 7.1 South Coast Air Basin The project site is located within Orange County, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin) that includes the non‐desert portions of Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties and all of Orange County. The Air Basin is located on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills to the east. Regionally, the Air Basin is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains to the east forming the inland perimeter. 7.2 Local Climate Orange County is located on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills to the east. The general region lies in the semi‐permanent high‐pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. Occasional periods of strong Santa Ana winds and winter storms interrupt the otherwise mild weather pattern. Although the Air Basin has a semi‐arid climate, the air near the surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry air is brought into the Air Basin by offshore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods of heavy fog are frequent and low stratus clouds, often referred to as “high fog” are a characteristic climate feature. Winds are an important parameter in characterizing the air quality environment of a project site because they determine the regional pattern of air pollution transport and control the rate of dispersion near a source. Daytime winds in Orange County are usually light breezes from off the coast as air moves regionally onshore from the cool Pacific Ocean. These winds are usually the strongest in the dry summer months. Nighttime winds in Orange County are a result mainly from the drainage of cool air off of the mountains to the east and they occur more often during the winter months and are usually lighter than the daytime winds. Between the periods of dominant airflow, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Whether such a period of stagnation occurs is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high‐pressure systems north of the Air Basin combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong winds, called “Santa Ana Winds”, from the northeast. These winds normally have durations of a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. The highest wind speed typically occurs during the afternoon due to daytime thermal convection caused by surface heating. This convection brings about a downward transfer of momentum from stronger winds aloft. It is not uncommon to have sustained winds of 60 miles per hour with higher gusts during a Santa Ana Wind event. The temperature and precipitation levels for Santa Ana Fire Station, which is the nearest weather station to the project site with historical data is shown below in Table D. Table D shows that August is typically the warmest month and December is typically the coolest month. Rainfall in the project area varies considerably in both time and space. Almost all the annual rainfall comes from the fringes of mid‐latitude storms from late November to early April, with summers being almost completely dry. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 35 Table D – Monthly Climate Data Month Average Maximum Temperature (°F) Average Minimum Temperature (°F) Average Total Precipitation (inches) January 68.1 43.1 2.73 February 68.9 44.9 3.05 March 70.7 46.7 2.21 April 73.1 50.0 1.05 May 75.2 54.0 0.25 June 78.6 57.4 0.06 July 83.5 60.9 0.02 August 84.7 61.6 0.06 September 83.9 59.3 0.22 October 79.4 54.5 0.49 November 74.2 47.5 1.28 December 68.8 43.6 2.28 Annual 75.8 52.0 13.69 Source: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi‐bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7888 7.3 Monitored Local Air Quality The air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the Air Basin. Estimates of the existing emissions in the Air Basin provided in the 2012 AQMP, indicate that collectively, mobile sources account for 59 percent of the VOC, 88 percent of the NOx emissions and 40 percent of directly emitted PM2.5, with another 10 percent of PM2.5 from road dust. The 2016 AQMP found that since 2012 AQMP projections were made stationary source VOC emissions have decreased by approximately 12 percent, but mobile VOC emissions have increased by 5 percent. The percentage of NOx emissions remain unchanged between the 2012 and 2016 projections. SCAQMD has divided the Air Basin into 38 air‐monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring station representative of each area. The project site is located on the northwestern edge of air monitoring area 21, which covers the southeastern portion of Orange County. The nearest air monitoring station to the project site is the Anaheim‐Pampas Lane Monitoring Station (Anaheim Station), which is located approximately 6.5 miles west of the project site at 1630 Pampas Lane, Anaheim. The monitoring data is presented in Table E and shows the most recent three years of monitoring data from CARB. CO measurements have not been provided, since CO is currently in attainment in the Air Basin and monitoring of CO within the Air Basin ended on March 31, 2013. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 36 Table E – Local Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary Pollutant (Standard) Year1 2016 2017 2018 Ozone: 1 Maximum 1‐Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.103 0.090 0.112 Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 2 0 1 Maximum 8‐Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.074 0.076 0.071 Days > NAAQS (0.070 ppm) 4 4 1 Days > CAAQs (0.070 ppm) 0 2 0 Nitrogen Dioxide: 1 Maximum 1‐Hour Concentration (ppb) 64.3 81.2 66.0 Days > NAAQS (100 ppb) 0 0 0 Days > CAAQS (180 ppb) 0 0 0 Inhalable Particulates (PM10) :1 Maximum 24‐Hour National Measurement (ug/m3) 74.0 95.7 94.6 Days > NAAQS (150 ug/m3) 0 0 0 Days > CAAQS (50 ug/m3) 3 5 2 Annual Arithmetic Mean (AAM) (ug/m3) 28.0 26.9 27.7 Annual > NAAQS (50 ug/m3) No No No Annual > CAAQS (20 ug/m3) Yes Yes Yes Ultra‐Fine Particulates (PM2.5):1 Maximum 24‐Hour National Measurement (ug/m3) 44.4 53.9 63.1 Days > NAAQS (35 ug/m3) 1 7 7 Annual Arithmetic Mean (AAM) (ug/m3) 9.4 ND 12.3 Annual > NAAQS and CAAQS (12 ug/m3) No ND No Notes: Exceedances are listed in bold. CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard; ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; ND = no data available. 1 Data obtained from the Anaheim Station. Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/ Ozone During the last three years, the State 1‐hour concentration standard for ozone has been exceeded between 0 and 2 days each year at the Anaheim Station. The State 8‐hour ozone standard has been exceeded between 0 and 2 days each year over the last three years at the Anaheim Station. The Federal 8‐hour ozone standard has been exceeded between 1 and 4 days each year over the last three years at the Anaheim Station. Ozone is a secondary pollutant as it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of chemical reactions between other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and NO2, which occur only in the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in the area. Many areas of Southern California contribute to the ozone levels experienced at this monitoring station, with the more significant areas being those directly upwind. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 37 Nitrogen Dioxide The Anaheim Station did not record an exceedance of either the Federal or State 1‐hour NO2 standards for the last three years. Particulate Matter The State 24‐hour concentration standard for PM10 has been exceeded between 2 and 4 days each year over the past three years at the Anaheim Station. Over the past three years the Federal 24‐hour standard for PM10 has not been exceeded at the Anaheim Station. The annual PM10 concentration at the Anaheim Station has exceeded the State standard for the past three years and has not exceeded the Federal standard for the past three years. Over the past three years the 24‐hour concentration standard for PM2.5 has been exceeded between 1 and 7 days in the year 2018 over the past three years at the Anaheim Station. The annual PM2.5 concentrations at the Anaheim Station has not exceeded either the State or Federal standard for the past three years. Particulate levels in the area are due to natural sources, grading operations, and motor vehicles. According to the EPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing fine particles (PM10 and PM2.5). People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death due to breathing these fine particles. People with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms from breathing in fine particles. Children may experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5. Other groups considered sensitive are smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are also considered sensitive, because many breathe through their mouths during exercise. 7.4 Toxic Air Contaminant Levels in the Air Basin In order to determine the Air Basin‐wide risks associated with major airborne carcinogens, the SCAQMD conducted the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) studies. According to the SCAQMD’s MATES‐ IV study, the project site has an estimated cancer risk of 355 per million persons chance of cancer. In comparison, the average cancer risk for the Air Basin is 991 per million persons, which is based on the use of age‐sensitivity factors detailed in the OEHHA Guidelines (OEHHA, 2015). In order to provide a perspective of risk, it is often estimated that the incidence in cancer over a lifetime for the U.S. population ranges between 1 in 3 to 4 and 1 in 3, or a risk of about 300,000 per million persons. The MATES‐III study referenced a Harvard Report on Cancer Prevention, which estimated that of cancers associated with known risk factors, about 30 percent were related to tobacco, about 30 percent were related to diet and obesity, and about 2 percent were associated with environmental pollution related exposures that includes hazardous air pollutants. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 38 8.0 MODELING PARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS 8.1 CalEEMod Model Input Parameters The criteria air pollution and GHG emissions impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed through use of CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod is a computer model published by the SCAQMD for estimating air pollutant emissions. The CalEEMod program uses the EMFAC2014 computer program to calculate the emission rates specific for Orange County for employee, vendor and haul truck vehicle trips and the OFFROAD2011 computer program to calculate emission rates for heavy equipment operations. EMFAC2014 and OFFROAD2011 are computer programs generated by CARB that calculates composite emission rates for vehicles. Emission rates are reported by the program in grams per trip and grams per mile or grams per running hour. The project characteristics in the CalEEMod model were set to a project location of Orange County, a Climate Zone of 8, utility company of Southern California Edison and an opening year of 2022 was utilized in this analysis. Land Use Parameters The proposed project would consist of removal of existing parking the project site, grading of the project site, and building construction of Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters, and retrofitting the reserve apparatus building. A total of 82 parking spaces would be provided for the proposed residents and visitors, of which 21 staff parking and 5 visitor parking spaces would be on the Fire Station site and 54 staff parking spaces and 2 visitor parking spaces would be provided on the Parking site. The proposed project’s land use parameters that were entered into the CalEEMod model are shown in Table F. Table F – CalEEMod Land Use Parameters Proposed Land Use Land Use Subtype in CalEEMod Land Use Size1 Lot Acreage2 Building/Paving3 (square feet) Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters4 Government Office Building 27.93 TSF 0.81 27,927 Reserve Apparatus Building Unrefrigerated Warehouse‐No Rail 3.78 TSF 0.2 3,780 West Parking Lot Parking Lot 56 PS 1.23 22,400 HQ Parking Lot Parking Lot 26 PS 0.51 10,400 Notes: 1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet; PS = Parking Space 2 Lot acreage calculated based on the total project area of 1.52‐acres for Fire Station No.1/Headquarters and 1.23‐acres for West parking lot. 3 Building/Paving square feet represent area where architectural coatings will be applied. 4Includes 16,574 square feet for Fire Station No. 1 and 11,353 square feet for Headquarters Construction Parameters Construction activities have been modeled as starting in January 2021 and taking 19 months to complete. The construction‐related GHG emissions were based on a 30‐year amortization rate as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group meeting on November 19, 2009. The phases of construction activities that have been analyzed are detailed below and include: 1) Demolition; 2) Grading, 3) Building construction, 4) Application of architectural coatings, and 5) Paving. Since the project site is currently utilized by the City for parking and storage, the site preparation activities that consist of removal of rocks and tree stumps would occur during the demolition phase and not as a separate phase for the proposed project. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 39 Demolition Approximately a quarter of the 1.52 acre site is paved and the entire 1.23 acre west parking area is paved. Although some of this pavement may be saved, in order to provide a conservative analysis it has been assumed 1.61 acres (70,132 square feet) of pavement would be demolished as part of the proposed project. The pavement was assumed to be an average of 4‐inches thick and weigh 145 pounds per square foot, which results in 1,695 tons of pavement that would be removed from the project site. This would require a total of 168 haul truck trips (average 8.4 haul truck trips per day over duration of demolition phase). The demolition phase has been modeled as starting in January 2021 and occurring over four weeks. The demolition activities would require 13 worker trips per day. In order to account for water truck emissions, six vendor truck emissions were added to the demolition phase. The onsite equipment would consist of one concrete/industrial saw, two rubber tired dozers, and three either tractors, loaders, or backhoes, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix. The mitigation of water all exposed areas two times per day was chosen in order to account for the fugitive dust reduction that would occur through adhering to SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires that the Best Available Control Measures be utilized to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Grading The grading phase would occur after completion of the demolition phase and was modeled as occurring over four weeks. The onsite equipment utilized during the grading phase would consist of one grader, one rubber tired dozer, and two of either tractors, loaders, or backhoes, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix. The grading activities would generate 10 worker trips per day. In order to account for water truck emissions, six daily vendor truck trips were added to the grading phase. The mitigation of water all exposed areas two times per day was chosen in order to account for the fugitive dust reduction that would occur through adhering to SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires that the Best Available Control Measures be utilized to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Building Construction The building construction would occur after the completion of the grading phase and was modeled as occurring over 13 months, which is based the schedule provided by the project applicant. The building construction phase would generate 24 worker trips and 11 vendor trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of the simultaneous operation of one crane, two forklift, one generator, three welders, and one of either a tractor, loader, or backhoe, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix. Paving The paving phase would consist of paving the onsite roads and parking lots. The paving phase was modeled as occurring over five weeks day and starting after completion of the building construction phase. The paving phase would generate 15 worker trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of the simultaneous operation of one cement and mortar mixers, one paver, one paving equipment, two rollers, and one of either a tractor, loader or backhoe, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 40 Architectural Coating The application of architectural coatings was modeled as occurring after the paving phase and occurring over four weeks. The architectural coating phase was modeled based on covering 100 square feet of non‐ residential interior area, 47,561 square feet of non‐residential exterior area, and 1,968 square feet of parking area. The architectural coating phase would generate 5 worker trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of one air compressor, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix. Operational Emissions Modeling The operations‐related criteria air pollutant emissions and GHG emissions created by the proposed project have been analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model. The proposed project was analyzed in the CalEEMod model based on the land use parameters provided above. Mobile Sources Mobile sources include emissions generated from the additional vehicle trips that would occur through implementation of the proposed project. The CalEEMod default vehicle trip rates were utilized in the analysis. Since the proposed project consists of moving the existing Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters from 176 S Grand Street to the proposed location, which is approximately 0.7 mile away, all vehicle trip lengths were changed to 0.7 mile, since that is the maximum or worst‐case increase to the project generated trip lengths. No other changes were made to the default mobile source parameters in the CalEEMod model. The CalEEMod model provides the selection of “mitigation” to account for project conditions that would result in less emissions than a project without these conditions, however it should be noted that this “mitigation” may represent current conditions, such as development that is in close proximity to an existing transit facility, where a project built at such location, would create less vehicle trips and associated emissions than a project that was not built in close proximity to an existing transit facility. The mobile source emissions analysis for the Project included the CalEEMod “mitigation” of improved pedestrian network onsite and connecting offsite, and increase transit accessibility with 0.01 mile to the nearest transit to account for the existing OCTA Chapman and Water bus stop located on the proposed Fire Station site. Area Sources Area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment, hearths and architectural coatings. The area source emissions were based on the on‐going use of the proposed project in the CalEEMod model. According to the proposed project plans, no fireplaces or wood stoves would be installed into the proposed residential apartment units or common areas. As such the number of woodstoves and fireplaces was set to zero. No other changes were made to the default area source parameters in the CalEEMod model. Energy Usage Energy usage includes emissions from electricity and natural gas used onsite. The energy usage was based on the ongoing use of the proposed project in the CalEEMod Model. No changes were made to the default energy usage parameters in the CalEEMod model. The new 2019 Title 24, Part 6 building energy efficiency standards went into effect January 1, 2020 and require new lighting energy improvements that are 30 percent more efficient than the prior 2016 building Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 41 standards. In order to account for the new standards, the CalEEMod “mitigation” of 30 percent lighting energy improvement was selected. A summary of the new 2019 Title 24 standards can be found at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standard s_FAQ.pdf. Solid Waste Waste includes the GHG emissions associated with the processing of waste from the proposed project as well as the GHG emissions from the waste once it is interred into a landfill. The analysis was based on the default CalEEMod waste generation rates of 51 tons of solid waste per year from the proposed project. No changes were made to the default solid waste parameters or mitigation measures in the CalEEMod model. The CalEEMod “mitigation” of a 50 percent reduction in landfill waste was selected to account for implementation of AB 341 that provides strategies to reduce, recycle or compost solid waste by 75 percent by 2020. Only 50 percent was selected, since AB 341 builds upon the waste reduction measures of SB 939 and 1374 and therefore, it was assumed approximately 25 percent of the waste reduction target has already been accounted for in the CalEEMod model. Water and Wastewater Water includes the water used for the interior of the buildings as well as for landscaping and is based on the GHG emissions associated with the energy used to transport and filter the water. The analysis was based on the default CalEEMod water usage rate of 7,181,016 gallons per year of indoor water use and 4,526,916 gallons per year of outdoor water use. No changes were made to the default water and wastewater parameters in the CalEEMod model. The CalEEMod “mitigation” of the use of low flow faucets, showers, and toilets and use of smart irrigation system controllers were selected to account for the implementation of the 2016 CCR Title 24 Part 11 (CalGreen) requirements. Backup Diesel Generator The proposed project would include the installation of a 250 kW 389 horsepower backup diesel‐powered generator. Backup generators typically cycle on for 30 minutes on a weekly basis in order to keep the engine lubricated and ready to use in case of a power outage. The typical cycling of a backup generator would operate for approximately 26 hours per year. The backup diesel generator was modeled in CalEEMod based on a 389 horsepower engine, a 0.73 load factor, 0.5 hour per day, and 26 hours per year. 8.2 Energy Use Calculations The proposed project is anticipated to consume energy during both construction and operation of the proposed project and the parameters utilized to calculate energy use from construction and operation of the proposed project are detailed separately below. Construction‐Related Energy Use Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to use energy in the forms of petroleum fuel for both off‐road equipment as well as from the transport of workers and materials to and from the project site and the calculations for each source are described below. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 42 Off‐Road Construction Equipment The off‐road construction equipment fuel usage was calculated through use of the CalEEMod model’s default off‐road equipment assumptions detailed above in Section 8.1. For each piece of off‐road equipment, the fuel usage was calculated through use of the 2017 Off‐road Diesel Emission Factors spreadsheet, prepared by CARB (https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/ordiesel.htm). The Spreadsheet provides the following formula to calculate fuel usage from off‐road equipment: Fuel Used = Load Factor x Horsepower x Total Operational Hours x BSFC / Unit Conversion Where: Load Factor ‐ Obtained from CalEEMod default values Horsepower – Obtained from CalEEMod default values Total Operational Hours – Calculated by multiplying CalEEMod default daily hours by CalEEMod default number of working days for each phase of construction BSFC – Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (pounds per horsepower‐hour) – If less than 100 Horsepower = 0.408, if greater than 100 Horsepower = 0.367 Unit Conversion – Converts pounds to gallons = 7.109 Table G shows the off‐road construction equipment fuel calculations based on the above formula. Table G – Off‐Road Equipment and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project Equipment Type Equipment Quantity Horse‐ power Load Factor Operating Hours per Day Total Operational Hours1 Fuel Used (gallons) Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 81 0.73 8 160 543 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 247 0.40 8 160 816 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 97 0.37 8 480 989 Grading Graders 1 187 0.41 8 160 633 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 247 0.4 8 160 816 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 97 0.37 7 280 577 Building Construction Cranes 1 231 0.29 8 2,320 8,023 Forklifts 2 89 0.2 7 4,060 4,148 Generators 1 84 0.74 8 2,320 8,277 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 97 0.37 6 1,740 3,584 Welders 3 46 0.45 8 6,960 8,269 Architectural Coating Air Compressor 1 78 0.48 6 180 387 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 9 0.56 8 240 69 Pavers 1 130 0.42 8 240 676 Paving Equipment 1 132 0.36 8 240 589 Rollers 2 80 0.38 8 480 837 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 97 0.37 8 240 494 Total Off‐Road Equipment Fuel Used during Construction (gallons) 39,727 Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 43 Notes: 1 Based on: 20 days for Demolition; 20 days for Grading; 290 days for Building Construction; 30 days for Paving; and 30 days for Painting. Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 (see Appendix A); CARB, 2017. Table G shows that the off‐road equipment utilized during construction of the proposed project would consume 39,727 gallons of fuel. On‐Road Construction‐Related Vehicle Trips The on‐road construction‐related vehicle trips fuel usage was calculated through use of the construction vehicle trip assumptions from the CalEEMod model run as detailed above in Section 8.1. The calculated total construction miles was then divided by the fleet average for all of Southern California miles per gallon rates for the year 2021 calculated through use of the EMFAC2017 model (https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/) and the EMFAC2017 model printouts are shown in Appendix B. Table H shows the on‐road construction vehicle trips modeled in CalEEMod and the fuel usage calculations. Table H – On‐Road Vehicle Trips and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project Vehicle Trip Types Daily Trips Trip Length (miles) Total Miles per Day Total Miles per Phase1 Fleet Average Miles per Gallon2 Fuel Used (gallons) Demolition Worker Trips 13 14.7 191 3,822 25.3 151 Vendor Truck Trips 6 6.9 147 828 8.0 104 Haul Truck Trips 8.4 20 168 3,360 8.0 422 Grading Worker Trips 10 14.7 147 2,940 25.3 116 Vendor Truck Trips 6 6.9 41 828 8.0 104 Building Construction Worker Trips 24 14.7 353 102,312 25.3 4,051 Vendor Truck Trips 11 6.9 76 22,011 8.0 2,762 Paving Worker Trips 15 14.7 221 6,615 25.3 262 Architectural Coating Worker Trips 5 14.7 74 2,205 25.3 87 Total Fuel Used from On‐Road Construction Vehicles (gallons) 8,060 Notes: 1 Based on: 20 days for Demolition; 20 days for Grading; 290 days for Building Construction; 30 days for Paving; and 30 days for Painting. 2 From EMFAC 2017 model (see Appendix B). Worker Trips based on entire fleet of gasoline vehicles and Vendor Trips based on only truck fleet of diesel vehicles. Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2; CARB, 2018. Table H shows that the on‐road construction‐related vehicle trips would consume 8,060 gallons of fuel and as detailed above, Table G shows that the off‐road construction equipment would consume 39,727 gallons of fuel. This would result in the total consumption of 47,787 gallons of petroleum fuel from construction of the proposed project. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 44 Operations‐Related Energy Use The operation of the proposed project is anticipated to use energy in the forms of petroleum fuel, electricity, and natural gas, and the calculations for each source are described below. Operational Petroleum Fuel The on‐road operations‐related vehicle trips fuel usage was calculated through use of the total annual vehicle miles traveled assumptions from the CalEEMod model run as detailed above in Section 8.1, which found that operation of the proposed project would generate 159,227 vehicle miles traveled per year. The calculated total construction miles was then divided by the Southern California fleet average rate of 25.3 miles per gallon, which was calculated through use of the EMFAC2017 model and based on the year 2021. The EMFAC2017 model printouts are shown in Appendix B. Based on the above calculation methodology, operational vehicle trips generated from the proposed project would consume 6,305 gallons per year. Operation of the proposed project would also consume diesel fuel from the operation of the backup generator. According to the Generac SD250 Data Sheet, a 250 kW generator consumes 14.8 gallons per hour with a 75 percent load. As detailed above in Section 8.1, the typical maintenance cycling of the proposed diesel generator is anticipated to run 26 hours per year. This would result in the consumption of 385 gallons of diesel per year. Operational Electricity Use The operations‐related electricity usage was calculated in the CalEEMod model run that is detailed above in Section 8.1 that found the proposed Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters will use 354,338 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year, the proposed parking lot on the Fire Station site will use 2,548 kWh per year, the proposed parking lot on the Parking site will use 5,488 kWh per year, and the reserve apparatus room will use 13,502 kWh per year. Based on the above, it is anticipated that the proposed project would utilize 375,876 kWh per year of electricity. Operational Natural Gas Use The operations‐related natural gas usage was calculated in the CalEEMod model run that is provided in the Air Quality analysis that found proposed project will use 40,378 kilo British Thermal Units (kBTU) per, which is equivalent to 40 mega‐British Thermal units (MBTU) per year of natural gas. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 45 9.0 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE 9.1 Regional Air Quality Many air quality impacts that derive from dispersed mobile sources, which are the dominant pollution generators in the Air Basin, often occurs hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have converted primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally very small and difficult to measure. Therefore, SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the Air Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. For the purposes to this air quality impact analysis, a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table I. Table I – SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Lead Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55 3 Operation 55 55 550 150 150 55 3 Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd‐air‐quality‐significance‐thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2 9.2 Local Air Quality Project‐related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. In order to assess local air quality impacts the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project‐related air emissions in the project vicinity. SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), July 2008, which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The LST Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The LST Methodology provides Look‐Up Tables with different thresholds based on the location and size of the project site and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors. As detailed above in Section 7.3, the project site is located in Air Monitoring Area 17, which covers Central Orange County. The Look‐Up Tables provided in the LST Methodology include project site acreage sizes of 1‐acre, 2‐acres and 5‐acres. The 2‐ acre project site values in the Look‐Up Tables have been utilized in this analysis, since that is the nearest size available for the 2.75‐acres from both project sites. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Fire Station site are homes located on the east side of Jameson Street, which are as near as 60 feet east of the Fire Station site. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Parking site are homes located as near as 30 feet southwest of the Parking site. According to LST Methodology, any receptor located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) shall be based on the 25 meter thresholds. Table J below shows the LSTs for NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 for both construction and operational activities. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 46 Table J – SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance Activity Allowable Emissions (pounds/day)1 NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Construction 115 715 6 4 Operation 115 715 2 1 Notes: 1 The nearest offsite sensitive receptors are homes located 60 feet (18 meters) east of the Fire Station site and 30 feet (9 meters) southwest of the Parking site. According to SCAQMD methodology, all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25 meter threshold. Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look‐up Tables for two acres in Air Monitoring Area 17 Central Orange County. 9.3 Toxic Air Contaminants According to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, any project that has the potential to expose the public to toxic air contaminants in excess of the following thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact: If the Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk is 10 in one million or greater; or Toxic air contaminants from the proposed project would result in a Hazard Index increase of 1 or greater. In order to determine if the proposed project may have a significant impact related to toxic air contaminants (TACs), the Health Risk Assessment Guidance for analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis, (Diesel Analysis) prepared by SCAQMD, August 2003, recommends that if the proposed project is anticipated to create TACs through stationary sources or regular operations of diesel trucks on the project site, then the proximity of the nearest receptors to the source of the TAC and the toxicity of the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) should be analyzed through a comprehensive facility‐wide health risk assessment (HRA). 9.4 Odor Impacts The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that an odor impact would occur if the proposed project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, which states: “A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.” If the proposed project results in a violation of Rule 402 with regards to odor impacts, then the proposed project would create a significant odor impact. 9.5 Energy Conservation The new 2018 amendments and additions to the CEQA Checklist now includes an Energy Section that analyzes the proposed project’s energy consumption in order to avoid or reduce inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. Since the Energy Section was just added, no state or local agencies Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 47 have adopted specific criteria or thresholds to be utilized in an energy impact analysis. However, the 2018 Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, provide the following direction on how to analyze a project’s energy consumption: “If analysis of the project’s energy use reveals that the project may result in significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, the EIR shall mitigate that energy use. This analysis should include the project’s energy use for all project phases and components, including transportation‐related energy, during construction and operation. In addition to building code compliance, other relevant considerations may include, among others, the project’s size, location, orientation, equipment use and any renewable energy features that could be incorporated into the project. (Guidance on information that may be included in such an analysis is presented in Appendix F.) This analysis is subject to the rule of reason and shall focus on energy use that is caused by the project. This analysis may be included in related analyses of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation or utilities in the discretion of the lead agency.” If the proposed project creates inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction or operation activities or conflicts with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, then the proposed project would create a significant energy impact. 9.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. In order to identify significance criteria under CEQA for development projects, SCAQMD initiated a Working Group, which provided detailed methodology for evaluating significance under CEQA. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use projects. Although the SCAQMD provided substantial evidence supporting the use of the above threshold, as of November 2017, the SCAQMD Board has not yet considered or approved the Working Group’s thresholds. It should be noted that SCAQMD’s Working Group’s thresholds were prepared prior to the issuance of Executive Order B‐30‐15 on April 29, 2015 that provided a reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. This target was codified into statute through passage of AB 197 and SB 32 in September 2016. However, to date no air district or local agency within California has provided guidance on how to address AB 197 and SB 32 with relation to land use projects. In addition, the California Supreme Court’s ruling on Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (Cleveland v. SANDAG), Filed July 13, 2017 stated: SANDAG did not abuse its discretion in declining to adopt the 2050 goal as a measure of significance in light of the fact that the Executive Order does not specify any plan or implementation measures to achieve its goal. In its response to comments, the EIR said: “It is uncertain what role regional land use and transportation strategies can or should play in achieving the EO’s 2050 emissions reduction target. A recent California Energy Commission report concludes, however, that the primary strategies to achieve this target should be major ‘decarbonization’ of electricity supplies and fuels, and major improvements in energy efficiency [citation]. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 48 Although, the above court case was referencing California’s GHG emission targets for the year 2050, at this time it is also unclear what role land use strategies can or should play in achieving the AB 197 and SB 32 reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. As such this analysis has relied on the SCAQMD Working Group’s recommended thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would be considered to create a significant cumulative GHG impact if the proposed project would exceed the annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. The GHG emissions analysis for both construction and operation of the proposed project can be found below in Sections 10.8 and 10.9. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 49 10.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS 10.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance Consistent with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to air quality, energy, and GHG emissions would occur if the proposed project is determined to: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people; Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy; Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. 10.2 Air Quality Compliance The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The following section discusses the proposed project’s consistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable General Plans and regional plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan that applies to the proposed project includes the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, this section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the proposed project with the AQMP. The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the proposed project would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards. If the decision‐makers determine that the proposed project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 50 (1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections. Criterion 1 ‐ Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this report, short‐term regional construction air emissions would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 9.1 or local thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 9.2. The ongoing operation of the proposed project would generate air pollutant emissions that are inconsequential on a regional basis and would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 9.1. The analysis for long‐term local air quality impacts showed that local pollutant concentrations would not be projected to exceed the air quality standards. Therefore, a less than significant long‐term impact would occur and no mitigation would be required. Therefore, based on the information provided above, the proposed project would be consistent with the first criterion. Criterion 2 ‐ Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP? Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to insure that the analyses conducted for the proposed project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The AQMP is developed through use of the planning forecasts provided in the RTP/SCS and FTIP. The RTP/SCS is a major planning document for the regional transportation and land use network within Southern California. The RTP/SCS is a long‐range plan that is required by federal and state requirements placed on SCAG and is updated every four years. The FTIP provides long‐range planning for future transportation improvement projects that are constructed with state and/or federal funds within Southern California. Local governments are required to use these plans as the basis of their plans for the purpose of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this project, the City of Orange General Plan’s Land Use Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in AQMP. The General Plan Land Use Element designation for this site is Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI) and is currently zoned as Office Professional (O‐P) and Single Family Residential (R‐1‐6). The proposed project would include a zone amendment of the site to Public Institution (P‐I) to better reflect the existing nature of the land uses in the neighborhood and to ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. Since the proposed project is an allowed land use under the current General Plan land use designation and zoning, the proposed project is consistent with the current land use designation and zoning and is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion. Based on the above, the proposed project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur in relation to implementation of the AQMP. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 51 Level of Significance Less than significant impact. 10.3 Cumulative Net Increase in Non‐Attainment Pollution The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard. The following section calculates the potential air emissions associated with the construction and operations of the proposed project and compares the emissions to the SCAQMD standards. Construction Emissions The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include demolition and grading of both project sites, building construction, paving of the onsite driveways and parking lots, and application of architectural coatings. The construction emissions have been analyzed for both regional and local air quality impacts. Construction‐Related Regional Impacts The CalEEMod model has been utilized to calculate the construction‐related regional emissions from the proposed project and the input parameters utilized in this analysis have been detailed in Section 7.1. The worst‐case summer or winter daily construction‐related criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed project for each phase of construction activities are shown below in Table K and the CalEEMod daily printouts are shown in Appendix A. Since it is possible that building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities may occur concurrently towards the end of the building construction phase, Table K also shows the combined regional criteria pollutant emissions from year 2022 building construction, paving and architectural coating phases of construction. Table K – Construction‐Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Demolition1 Onsite 1.99 19.70 14.49 0.02 1.86 1.10 Offsite 0.13 2.73 1.13 0.00 0.34 0.01 Total 2.12 22.43 15.62 0.02 2.20 1.11 Grading1 Onsite 1.83 20.21 9.76 0..02 3.86 2.36 Offsite 0.06 0.59 0.45 0.00 0.15 0.04 Total 1.89 20.80 10.21 0.00 4.01 2.40 Building Construction (Year 2021) Onsite 2.05 16.03 14.56 0.03 0.82 0.78 Offsite 0.17 1.08 1.01 0.00 0.34 0.10 Total 2.22 17.11 15.57 0.03 1.16 0.88 Building Construction (Year 2022) Onsite 1.86 14.60 14.35 0.03 0.70 0.67 Offsite 0.12 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.09 Total 1.98 15.63 14.35 0.03 1.04 0.76 Paving Onsite 1.09 9.33 11.68 0.02 0.49 0.45 Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 52 Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Offsite 0.05 0.03 0.43 0.00 0.04 0.05 Total 1.14 9.36 12.11 0.02 0.53 0.50 Architectural Coating Onsite 13.31 1.41 1.81 0.00 0.08 0.08 Offsite 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.06 0.02 Total 13.33 1.42 1.95 0.00 0.14 0.10 Combined Building Construction (Year 2022), Paving and Architectural Coatings Onsite 16.26 25.34 27.84 0.05 1.27 1.20 Offsite 0.36 2.15 1.58 0.00 0.78 0.26 Total 16.62 27.49 29.42 0.05 2.05 1.46 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 16.62 27.49 29.42 0.05 4.01 2.40 SCQAMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: 1 Demolition and Grading based on adherence to fugitive dust suppression requirements from SCAQMD Rule 403. 2 Onsite emissions from equipment not operated on public roads. 3 Offsite emissions from vehicles operating on public roads. Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. Table K shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds during either demolition, grading, or the combined building construction, paving and architectural coatings phases. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed project. Construction‐Related Local Impacts Construction‐related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed through utilizing the methodology described in Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), prepared by SCAQMD, revised October 2009. The LST Methodology found the primary criteria pollutant emissions of concern are NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. In order to determine if any of these pollutants require a detailed analysis of the local air quality impacts, each phase of construction was screened using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look‐up Tables. The Look‐up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily onsite emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the proposed project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. Table L shows the onsite emissions from the CalEEMod model for the different construction phases and the calculated localized emissions thresholds that have been detailed above in Section 8.2. Since it is possible that building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities may occur concurrently towards the end of the building construction phase, Table L also shows the combined local criteria pollutant emissions from year 2022 building construction, paving and architectural coating phases of construction. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 53 Table L – Construction‐Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1 Phase NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Demolition2 20.04 14.63 1.90 1.10 Grading2 20.28 9.82 3.88 2.37 Building Construction (Year 2021) 16.17 14.69 0.86 0.79 Combined Building Construction (Year 2021), Paving and Architectural Coatings 25.61 28.04 1.37 1.23 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 20.28 14.63 3.88 2.37 SCAQMD Local Construction Thresholds3 115 715 6 4 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 The Pollutant Emissions include 100% of the On‐Site emissions (off‐road equipment and fugitive dust) and 1/8 of the Off‐Site emissions (on road trucks and worker vehicles), in order to account for the on‐road emissions that occur within a ¼ mile of the project site. 2 Demolition and Grading phases based on adherence to fugitive dust suppression requirements from SCAQMD Rule 403. 3 The nearest offsite sensitive receptors are homes located 60 feet (18 meters) east of the Fire Station site and 30 feet (9 meters) southwest of the Parking site. According to SCAQMD methodology, all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25 meter threshold. Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look‐up Tables for two acres in Air Monitoring Area 17 Central Orange County. The data provided in Table L shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local emissions thresholds during either demolition, grading, or the combined building construction, paving, and architectural coatings phases. Therefore, a less than significant local air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed project. Operational Emissions The on‐going operation of the proposed project would result in a long‐term increase in air quality emissions. This increase would be due to emissions from the project‐generated vehicle trips, emissions from energy usage, onsite area source emissions created from the on‐going use of the proposed project, and from the proposed 125 kilowatt backup diesel generator. The following section provides an analysis of potential long‐term air quality impacts due to regional air quality and local air quality impacts with the on‐going operations of the proposed project. Operations‐Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Analysis The operations‐related regional criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model and the input parameters utilized in this analysis have been detailed in Section 8.1. The worst‐case summer or winter VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 daily emissions created from the proposed project’s long‐term operations have been calculated and are summarized below in Table M and the CalEEMod daily emissions printouts are shown in Appendix A. The data provided in Table M shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from operation of the proposed project. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 54 Table M – Operational Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources1 0.72 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage2 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 Mobile Sources3 1.71 4.87 8.08 0.01 0.49 0.14 Backup Generator4 0.16 0.44 0.40 0.00 0.02 0.02 Total Emissions 2.60 5.38 8.55 0.01 0.52 0.17 SCQAMD Operational Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: 1 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 2 Energy usage consist of emissions from natural gas usage. 3 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. 4 Backup Generator based on a 125 kW (190 Horsepower) diesel generator that has a cycling schedule of 30 minutes per week. Source: Calculated from CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 and CAPCOA, 1997. In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 (also referred to as “Friant Ranch”), the California Supreme Court held that when an EIR concluded that when a project would have significant impacts to air quality impacts, an EIR should “make a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” In order to determine compliance with this Case, the Court developed a multi‐part test that includes the following: 1) The air quality discussion shall describe the specific health risks created from each criteria pollutant, including diesel particulate matter. This Analysis details the specific health risks created from each criteria pollutant above in Section 4.1 and specifically in Table B. In addition, the specific health risks created from diesel particulate matter is detailed above in Section 2.2 of this analysis. As such, this analysis meets the part 1 requirements of the Friant Ranch Case. 2) The analysis shall identify the magnitude of the health risks created from the Project. The Ruling details how to identify the magnitude of the health risks. Specifically, on page 24 of the ruling it states “The Court of Appeal identified several ways in which the EIR could have framed the analysis so as to adequately inform the public and decision makers of possible adverse health effects. The County could have, for example, identified the Project’s impact on the days of nonattainment per year.” Table M above shows that the primary source of operational air emissions would be created from mobile source emissions that would be generated throughout the Air Basin. As such, any adverse health impacts created from the proposed project should be assessed on a basin‐wide level. As indicated above in Table B, the Air Basin has been designated by EPA for the national standards as a non‐attainment area for ozone, PM2.5, and partial non‐attainment for lead. In addition, PM10 has been designated by the State as non‐ attainment. It should be noted that VOC and NOx are ozone precursors, as such they have been considered as non‐attainment pollutants. According to the 2016 AQMP, in 2016 the total emissions of: VOC was 500 tons per year; NOx was 522 tons per year; SOx was 18 tons per year; and PM2.5 was 66 tons per year. Since the 2016 AQMP did not calculate total PM10 emissions, the total PM10 emissions were obtained from The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by CARB, for Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 55 the year 2020. The project contribution to each criteria pollutant in the South Coast Air Basin is shown in Table N. Table N – Project’s Contribution to Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Emissions Source VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Project Emissions1 2.60 5.38 8.55 0.01 0.52 0.17 Total Emissions in Air Basin2 1,000,000 1,044,000 4,246,000 36,000 322,000 132,000 Project’s Percent of Air Emissions 0.0003% 0.0005% 0.0002% 0.00003% 0.0002% 0.0001% SCQAMD Operational Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: 1 From the project’s total operational emissions shown above in Table M. 2 VOC, NOx, CO, SO2 and PM2.5 from 2016 AQMP and PM10 from the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition. As shown in Table N, the project would increase criteria pollutant emissions by as much as 0.0005 percent for NOx in the South Coast Air Basin. Due to these nominal increases in the Air Basin‐wide criteria pollutant emissions, no increases in days of non‐attainment are anticipated to occur from operation of the proposed project. As such, this analysis meets the part 2 requirements of the Friant Ranch Case and therefore no further analysis is required. As such, operation of the project is not anticipated to result in a quantitative increase in premature deaths, asthma in children, days children will miss school, asthma‐ related emergency room visits, or an increase in acute bronchitis among children due to the criteria pollutants created by the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant. Operations‐Related Local Air Quality Impacts Project‐related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The proposed project has been analyzed for the potential local CO emission impacts from the project‐generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality impacts from on‐site operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions and local impacts from on‐site operations. Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project‐Generated Vehicular Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the State and Federal CO standards of 20 ppm over one hour or 9 ppm over eight hours. At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the Air Basin was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Air Basin and in the state have steadily declined. According to the SCAQMD Air Quality Data Tables, in 2007 Central Orange County had maximum CO concentrations of 4.0 ppm for 1 hour and 2.9 ppm for 8‐hours and in 2018 Central Orange County had maximum CO concentrations of 2.3 ppm for 1‐hour and 1.9 ppm for 8‐hours, which represent decreases in CO concentrations of 43 percent and 34 percent, respectively between 2018 and 2007. In 2007, the Air Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 56 Basin was designated in attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS. SCAQMD conducted a CO hot spot analysis for attainment at the busiest intersections in Los Angeles1 during the peak morning and afternoon periods and did not predict a violation of CO standards. Since the nearby intersections to the proposed project are much smaller with less traffic than what was analyzed by the SCAQMD and since the CO concentrations are now at least 34 percent lower than when CO was designated in attainment in 2007, no local CO Hotspot are anticipated to be created from the proposed project and no CO Hotspot modeling was performed. Therefore, a less than significant long‐term air quality impact is anticipated to local air quality with the on‐going use of the proposed project. Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Onsite Operations Project‐related air emissions from onsite sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and onsite usage of natural gas appliances may have the potential to create emissions areas that exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The local air quality emissions from onsite operations were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look‐up Tables and the methodology described in LST Methodology. The Look‐up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the proposed project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. Table N shows the onsite emissions from the CalEEMod model that includes area sources, energy usage, and vehicles operating in the immediate vicinity of the project site and the calculated emissions thresholds. Table O – Operations‐Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Onsite Emission Source NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.01 Mobile Sources 0.61 1.01 0.06 0.02 Backup Generator 0.44 0.40 0.02 0.02 Total Emissions 1.12 1.48 0.09 0.05 SCAQMD Local Operational Thresholds1 115 715 2 1 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 The nearest offsite sensitive receptors are homes located 60 feet (18 meters) east of the Fire Station site and 30 feet (9 meters) southwest of the Parking site. According to SCAQMD methodology, all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25 meter threshold. Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look‐up Tables for two acres in Air Monitoring Area 17 Central Orange County. The data provided in Table N shows that the on‐going operations of the proposed project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 9.2. Therefore, the on‐going operations of the proposed project would create a less than significant operations‐related impact to local air quality due to onsite emissions and no mitigation would be required. 1 The four intersections analyzed by the SCAQMD were: Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway; Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard. The busiest intersection evaluated (Wilshire and Veteran) had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day with LOS E in the morning and LOS F in the evening peak hour. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 57 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Level of Significance Less than significant impact. 10.4 Sensitive Receptors The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The local concentrations of criteria pollutant emissions produced in the nearby vicinity of the proposed project, which may expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations have been calculated above in Section 10.3 for both construction and operations, which are discussed separately below. The discussion below also includes an analysis of the potential impacts from toxic air contaminant emissions. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Fire Station site are homes located on the east side of Jameson Street, which are as near as 60 feet east of the Fire Station site. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Parking site are homes located as near as 30 feet southwest of the Parking site. Construction‐Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include anticipated to include demolition and grading of both project sites, building construction, paving of the onsite driveways and parking lots, and application of architectural coatings. Construction activities may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of localized criteria pollutant concentrations and from toxic air contaminant emissions created from onsite construction equipment, which are described below. Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Construction The local air quality impacts from construction of the proposed project has been analyzed above in Section 10.3 and found that the construction of the proposed project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 9.2. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would create a less than significant construction‐related impact to local air quality and no mitigation would be required. Toxic Air Contaminants Impacts from Construction The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of “individual cancer risk”. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70‐year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk‐assessment methodology. It should be noted that the most current cancer risk assessment methodology recommends analyzing a 30 year exposure period for the nearby sensitive receptors (OEHHA, 2015). Given the relatively limited number of heavy‐duty construction equipment, the varying distances that construction equipment would operate to the nearby sensitive receptors, and the short‐term construction schedule, the proposed project would not result in a long‐term (i.e., 30 or 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. In addition, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off‐road diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits idling of equipment to no more than five minutes, requires Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 58 equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual reports to CARB of their fleet’s usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet, and currently no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 0 or Tier 1 equipment and by January 2023 no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 2 equipment. In addition to the purchase restrictions, equipment operators need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more stringent each year between years 2014 and 2023. As of January, 2019, 25 percent or more of all contractors’ equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher. Therefore, no significant short‐term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed project. As such, construction of the proposed project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Operations‐Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts The on‐going operations of the proposed project may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of local CO emission impacts from the project‐generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality impacts from onsite operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions. Local criteria pollutant impacts from onsite operations, and toxic air contaminant impacts. Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project‐Generated Vehicle Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential impacts to sensitive receptors. The analysis provided above in Section 9.3 shows that no local CO Hotspots are anticipated to be created at any nearby intersections from the vehicle traffic generated by the proposed project. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant exposure of offsite sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Onsite Operations The local air quality impacts from the operation of the proposed project would occur from onsite sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and onsite usage of natural gas appliances. The analysis provided above in Section 10.3 found that the operation of the proposed project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 9.2. Therefore, the on‐going operations of the proposed project would create a less than significant operations‐related impact to local air quality due to on‐site emissions and no mitigation would be required. Operations‐Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts Particulate matter (PM) from diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in most areas and according to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by CARB, about 80 percent of the outdoor TAC cancer risk is from diesel exhaust. Some chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde have been listed as carcinogens by State Proposition 65 and the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program. Due to the nominal number of diesel truck trips that are anticipated to be generated by the proposed project, a less than significant TAC impact would occur during the on‐going operations of the proposed project and no mitigation would be required. Operation of the Proposed Project would create TAC emissions from operation of a 250 kilowatt (389 horsepower) backup diesel generator equipped with a diesel particulate filter (DPF) that will limit DPM Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 59 created from the backup generator. Backup generators typically cycle on for 30 minutes on a weekly basis in order to keep the engine lubricated and ready to use in case of a power outage. The typical cycling of a backup generator would operate for approximately 26 hours per year. SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 exempts emergency standby generators that operate less than 200 hours per year from obtaining an air permit. The SCAQMD has developed the operating hour exemption limits based on levels that were determined to result in the generation of inconsequential emissions from backup generators. As such, the cancer risk created from the backup generator’s TAC emissions to the nearby sensitive receptors is anticipated to be negligible. Therefore, through adherence to the backup generator operating time limits detailed in Rule 1110.2, less than significant long‐term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during operation of the Proposed Project. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Level of Significance Less than significant impact. 10.5 Odor Emissions The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Individual responses to odors are highly variable and can result in a variety of effects. Generally, the impact of an odor results from a variety of factors such as frequency, duration, offensiveness, location, and sensory perception. The frequency is a measure of how often an individual is exposed to an odor in the ambient environment. The intensity refers to an individual’s or group’s perception of the odor strength or concentration. The duration of an odor refers to the elapsed time over which an odor is experienced. The offensiveness of the odor is the subjective rating of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of an odor. The location accounts for the type of area in which a potentially affected person lives, works, or visits; the type of activity in which he or she is engaged; and the sensitivity of the impacted receptor. Sensory perception has four major components: detectability, intensity, character, and hedonic tone. The detection (or threshold) of an odor is based on a panel of responses to the odor. There are two types of thresholds: the odor detection threshold and the recognition threshold. The detection threshold is the lowest concentration of an odor that will elicit a response in a percentage of the people that live and work in the immediate vicinity of the project site and is typically presented as the mean (or 50 percent of the population). The recognition threshold is the minimum concentration that is recognized as having a characteristic odor quality, this is typically represented by recognition by 50 percent of the population. The intensity refers to the perceived strength of the odor. The odor character is what the substance smells like. The hedonic tone is a judgment of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the odor. The hedonic tone varies in subjective experience, frequency, odor character, odor intensity, and duration. Potential odor impacts have been analyzed separately for construction and operations below. Construction‐Related Odor Impacts Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of coatings such as asphalt pavement, paints and solvents and from emissions from diesel equipment. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site’s boundaries. Due to the transitory nature of construction odors, a less than significant odor impact would occur and no mitigation would be required. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 60 Operations‐Related Odor Impacts Potential sources of odor emission during operation of the Proposed Project would include diesel emissions from the fire trucks and backup generator as well as odors from trash storage areas. All fire trucks that operate on the project site will be required to meet State emissions standards that require the use of diesel particulate filters that would minimize odors created from the fire trucks. The operation of the backup diesel generator would be limited to 200 hours or less per year and would include an exhaust stack with a diesel particulate filter that would limit the exhaust and associated odors created from the generator to negligible levels. Pursuant to City regulations, permanent trash enclosures that protect trash bins from rain as well as limit air circulation would be required for the trash storage areas. Due to the distance of the nearest sensitive receptor from the project site and through compliance with SCAQMD’s rules that include Rule 402 (odor regulations) and Rule 1110.2 (backup generator regulations) and the City’s trash storage regulations, a less than significant impact related to odors would occur during the on‐ going operations of the proposed project. Operational‐related odor impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Therefore, a less than significant odor impact would occur and no mitigation would be required. Level of Significance Less than significant impact. 10.6 Energy Consumption The proposed project would impact energy resources during construction and operation. Energy resources that would be potentially impacted include electricity, natural gas, and petroleum based fuel supplies and distribution systems. This analysis includes a discussion of the potential energy impacts of the proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The following section calculates the potential energy consumption associated with the construction and operations of the proposed project and provides a determination if any energy utilized by the proposed project is wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Construction Energy The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include demolition and grading of both project sites, building construction, paving of the onsite driveways and parking lots, and application of architectural coatings. The proposed project would consume energy resources during construction in three (3) general forms: 1. Petroleum‐based fuels used to power off‐road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project Site, construction worker travel to and from the Project Site, as well as delivery and haul truck trips (e.g. hauling of demolition material to off‐site reuse and disposal facilities); 2. Electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during Project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power; and, 3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 61 Construction‐Related Electricity During construction the proposed project would consume electricity to construct the new structures and infrastructure. Electricity would be supplied to the project site by Southern California Edison (SCE) and would be obtained from the existing electrical lines in the vicinity of the project site. The use of electricity from existing power lines rather than temporary diesel or gasoline powered generators would minimize impacts on energy use. Electricity consumed during project construction would vary throughout the construction period based on the construction activities being performed. Various construction activities include electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power. Such electricity demand would be temporary, nominal, and would cease upon the completion of construction. Overall, construction activities associated with the proposed project would require limited electricity consumption that would not be expected to have an adverse impact on available electricity supplies and infrastructure. Therefore, the use of electricity during project construction would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Since there are power poles running along the east side of the project site, it is anticipated that only nominal improvements would be required to SCE distribution lines and equipment with development of the proposed project. Where feasible, the new service installations and connections would be scheduled and implemented in a manner that would not result in electrical service interruptions to other properties. Compliance with City guidelines and requirements would ensure that the proposed project fulfills its responsibilities relative to infrastructure installation, coordinates any electrical infrastructure removals or relocations, and limits any impacts associated with construction of the project. Construction of the project’s electrical infrastructure is not anticipated to adversely affect the electrical infrastructure serving the surrounding uses or utility system capacity. Construction‐Related Natural Gas Construction of the proposed project typically would not involve the consumption of natural gas. Natural gas would not be supplied to support construction activities, thus there would be no demand generated by construction. Since the project site is currently developed that currently has natural gas service to the project site, construction of the proposed project would be limited to installation of new natural gas connections within the project site. Development of the proposed project would likely not require extensive infrastructure improvements to serve the project site. Construction‐related energy usage impacts associated with the installation of natural gas connections are expected to be confined to trenching in order to place the lines below surface. In addition, prior to ground disturbance, the proposed project would notify and coordinate with SoCalGas to identify the locations and depth of all existing gas lines and avoid disruption of gas service. Therefore, construction‐related impacts to natural gas supply and infrastructure would be less than significant. Construction‐Related Petroleum Fuel Use Petroleum‐based fuel usage represents the highest amount of transportation energy potentially consumed during construction, which would utilized by both off‐road equipment operating on the project site and on‐road automobiles transporting workers to and from the project site and on‐road trucks transporting equipment and supplies to the project site. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 62 The off‐road construction equipment fuel usage was calculated through use of the off‐road equipment assumptions and fuel use assumptions shown above in Section 8.3, which found that the off‐road equipment utilized during construction of the proposed Project would consume 39,727 gallons of fuel. The on‐road construction trips fuel usage was calculated through use of the construction vehicle trip assumptions and fuel use assumptions shown above in Section 8.3, which found that the on‐road trips generated from construction of the proposed Project would consume 8,064 gallons of fuel. As such, the combined fuel used from off‐road construction equipment and on‐road construction trips for the proposed Project would result in the consumption of 47,787 gallons of petroleum fuel. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would be required to adhere to all State and SCAQMD regulations for off‐road equipment and on‐road trucks, which provide minimum fuel efficiency standards. As such, construction activities for the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts regarding transportation energy would be less than significant. Development of the Project would not result in the need to manufacture construction materials or create new building material facilities specifically to supply the proposed project. It is difficult to measure the energy used in the production of construction materials such as asphalt, steel, and concrete, it is reasonable to assume that the production of building materials such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest of minimizing the cost of doing business. Operational Energy The on‐going operation of the proposed project would require the use of energy resources for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, heating/ventilating/air conditioning (HVAC), refrigeration, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Energy would also be consumed during operations related to water usage, solid waste disposal, landscape equipment and vehicle trips. Operations‐Related Electricity Operation of the proposed project would result in consumption of electricity at the project site. As detailed above in Section 8.3 the proposed project would consume 375,876 kilowatt‐hours per year of electricity. It should be noted that, the proposed project would comply with all Federal, State, and City requirements related to the consumption of electricity, that includes CCR Title 24, Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards. The CCR Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11 standards require numerous energy efficiency measures to be incorporated into the proposed buildings, including enhanced insulation, use of energy efficient lighting and appliances as well as requiring a variety of other energy‐efficiency measures to be incorporated into all of the proposed structures. Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed project will be designed and built to minimize electricity use and that existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to support the proposed project’s electricity demand. Thus, impacts with regard to electrical supply and infrastructure capacity would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Operations‐Related Natural Gas Operation of the proposed project would result in increased consumption of natural gas at the project site. As detailed above in Section 8.3 the proposed project would consume 40 MBTU per year of natural gas. It should be noted that, the proposed project would comply with all Federal, State, and City requirements related to the consumption of natural gas, that includes CCR Title 24, Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards. The CCR Title 24, Part Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 63 6 and Part 11 standards require numerous energy efficiency measures to be incorporated into the proposed structures, including enhanced insulation as well as use of efficient natural gas appliances and HVAC units. Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed project will be designed and built to minimize natural gas use and that existing and planned natural gas capacity and natural gas supplies would be sufficient to support the proposed project’s natural gas demand. Thus, impacts with regard to natural gas supply and infrastructure capacity would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Operations‐Related Vehicular Petroleum Fuel Usage Operation of the proposed project would result in increased consumption of petroleum‐based fuels related to vehicular travel to and from the project site. As detailed above in Section 8.3 the proposed project would consume 6,305 gallons of petroleum fuel per year from vehicle travel and 385 gallons of diesel per year from the operation of the backup generator. It should be noted that, the proposed project would comply with all Federal, State, and City requirements related to the consumption of transportation energy that includes California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11 California Green Building Standards that require the proposed project to provide both long‐term and short‐term bicycle parking spaces that will promote the use of alternative transportation. Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed project will be designed and built to minimize transportation energy through the promotion of the use of clean air vehicles, including electric‐powered vehicles and it is anticipated that existing and planned capacity and supplies of transportation fuels would be sufficient to support the proposed project’s demand. Thus, impacts with regard transportation energy supply and infrastructure capacity would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. In conclusion, the proposed project would comply with regulatory compliance measures outlined by the State and City related to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG), Transportation/Circulation, and Water Supply. Additionally, the proposed project would be constructed in accordance with all applicable City Building and Fire Codes. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Less than significant impact. 10.7 Energy Plan Consistency The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The applicable energy plan for the proposed project is the City of Orange General Plan, March 2010, that provides an Energy Resources Component. The proposed project’s consistency with the applicable energy‐related policies in the General Plan are shown in Table P. Table P – Proposed Project Compliance with City General Plan Energy Policies General Plan Energy Policy Proposed Project Consistency with General Plan Policies NR Goal 2.0: Protect air, water, and energy resources from pollution and overuse. Consistent. The proposed project would not overuse air, water, and energy resources. Policy 2.1: Cooperate with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and other regional Consistent. The proposed project is consistent with the SCAQMD air quality management plan. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 64 General Plan Energy Policy Proposed Project Consistency with General Plan Policies agencies to implement and enforce regional air quality management plans. Policy 2.2: Support alternative transportation modes, alternative technologies, and bicycle‐ and pedestrian‐ friendly neighborhoods to reduce emissions related to vehicular travel. Consistent. The proposed project has a bus stop on the project site that would promote the use of alternative transportation to the project. Policy 2.6: Encourage sustainable building and site designs for new construction and renovation projects. Consistent. The proposed project has taken into account site designs for sustainability. Policy 2.7: Coordinate with energy suppliers to ensure adequate energy supplies to meet community needs, and to promote energy conservation and public education programs for that purpose. Not Applicable. This policy is only applicable to the City to work with energy suppliers. Policy 2.9: Promote City operations as a model for energy efficiency and green building. Consistent. The proposed project has been designed to meet green building standards. Policy 2.10: Work toward replacing existing City vehicles with ultra low or zero emission vehicles. At a minimum, new City vehicles shall be low emission vehicles as defined by the California Air Resources Board, except if certain vehicle types are not available in the marketplace. Public safety vehicles are exempted from this requirement. Not Applicable. This is a City requirement for City vehicles to be ultra low to zero emissions vehicles, which is not a part of the project. INF Goal 3.0: Ensure adequate maintenance of public rights‐of‐way to enhance public safety and improve circulation. Not Applicable. This is a City requirement, however the project does provide adequate rights‐of‐way. Policy 3.4: Investigate the feasibility of using energy‐ efficient street lights to conserve energy. Not Applicable. This is a City requirement to place energy efficient street lights. INF Goal 4.0: Ensure adequate provision of electricity, natural gas, telephone and data services and cable television. Consistent. The proposed project has been designed to ensure adequate capacity of electricity, natural gas, data and cable television can be supplied to the project. Policy 4.4: Encourage integrated and cost‐effective design and technology features within new development to minimize demands on dry utility networks. Consistent. The proposed project will be constructed using the most current design and technologies for dry utility networks. Source: City of Orange, 2010. As shown in Table P, the proposed project would be consistent with all applicable energy‐related policies provided in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Less than significant impact. 10.8 Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions The proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed project would consist of development of the proposed Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters. The proposed project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, mobile sources, waste disposal, water usage, backup generator, and construction equipment. The project’s GHG emissions have been calculated with the Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 65 CalEEMod model based on the construction and operational parameters detailed above in Section 8.1. A summary of the results is shown below in Table Q and the CalEEMod model run is provided in Appendix C. Table Q – Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) Category CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Area Sources1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage2 134.18 0.01 0.00 134.69 Mobile Sources3 128.14 0.01 0.00 128.45 Backup Generator4 1.88 0.00 0.00 1.89 Solid Waste5 3.00 0.18 0.00 7.42 Water and Wastewater6 34.25 0.17 0.01 39.73 Construction7 5.05 0.00 0.00 15.12 Total GHG Emissions 306.50 0.37 0.01 327.30 SCAQMD Draft Threshold of Significance 3,000 Exceed Thresholds? No Notes: 1 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 2 Energy usage consists of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. 3 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 4 Backup Generator based on a 125 kW (190 Horsepower) diesel generator that has a cycling schedule of 30 minutes per week. 5 Waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 6 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 7 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group on November 19, 2009. Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. The data provided in Table Q shows that the proposed project would create 327.30 MTCO2e per year. According to the SCAQMD draft threshold of significance detailed above in Section 9.6, a cumulative global climate change impact would occur if the GHG emissions created from the on‐going operations would exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, a less than significant generation of greenhouse gas emissions would occur from development of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Less than significant impact. 10.9 Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The proposed project consists of the development of the proposed Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters. As detailed above in Section 10.8, the proposed project is anticipated to create 327.30 MTCO2e per year, which is well below the SCAQMD draft threshold of significance of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. The SCAQMD developed this threshold through a Working Group, which also developed detailed methodology for evaluating significance under CEQA. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use type projects, which was based on substantial evidence supporting the use of the recommended thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 66 with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Level of Significance Less than significant impact. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 67 11.0 REFERENCES Breeze Software, California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Guidelines, November 1997. California Air Resources Board, 2017 Off‐Road Diesel Emission Factor Update for NOx and PM, 2017. California Air Resources Board, Appendix VII Risk Characterization Scenarios, October 2000. California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017. California Air Resources Board, First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, May 2014. California Air Resources Board, Resolution 08‐43, December 12, 2008. California Air Resources Board, Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act, on October 24, 2008. California Air Resources Board, Final Staff Report Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets, October 2017. California Air Resources Board, The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition. California Department of Conservation, A General Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos, August, 2000. City of Orange, City of Orange General Plan, March 9, 2010. City of Orange, Orange General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report, March, 2010. City of Orange, City of Orange Local CEQA Guidelines, April 11, 2006. City of Orange, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) Analysis – Interim Guidance, September 30, 2008. Environmental Protection Agency, Nonattainment Major New Source Review Implementation Under 8‐ Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Reconsideration, June 30, 2005. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990‐2018, April 13, 2020. International Code Council, Guide to the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code Nonresidential, January 2017. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015 South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, June 1, 2007. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Page 68 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod, February 2011. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, December, 2012. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March, 2017. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised July 2008. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Revised Draft – 2012 Lead State Implementation Plan Los Angeles County, May 4, 2012. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 402 Nuisance, Adopted May 7, 1976. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 403 Fugitive Dust, Amended June 3, 2005. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1108 Cutback Asphalt, Amended February 1, 1985. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1108.1 Emulsified Asphalt, Amended November 4, 1983. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1110.2 Emissions from Gaseous and Liquid Fueled Engines, Amended September 7, 2019. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings, Amended September 6, 2013. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1143 Consumer Paint Thinners & Multi‐Purpose Solvents, Amended December 3, 2010. South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2015. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Report Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin, MATES III, January 2008. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Report Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin, MATES‐IV, October 2014. Southern California Association of Governments, 2016‐2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, April 2016. Southern California Association of Governments, 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Guidelines, September 2018. University of California, Davis, Transportation Project‐Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, December 1997. U.S. Geological Survey, Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California, 2011. Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Appendix A APPENDIX A CalEEMod Model Daily Printouts 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Government Office Building 27.93 1000sqft 0.81 27,927.00 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 3.78 1000sqft 0.20 3,780.00 0 Parking Lot 56.00 Space 1.23 22,400.00 0 Parking Lot 26.00 Space 0.51 10,400.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 8 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 30 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2022Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters Orange County, Summer CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 1 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer - ---�---�---t - - . - I I I I - - L - - - ·--------+ - - . - •• •p •• •p •• � 0 0 I I I I - • • ·� • • ·�••·�••I Project Characteristics - Land Use - HQ Site 1.52 acres and West Parking Lot 1.23 acres Construction Phase - Construction starting January 2021 and finishing July 2022 Trips and VMT - 6 vendor trucks per day added to Demolition and Grading to account for water truck emission. Demolition - 1,695 Tons of parking lot debris to be removed from site Grading - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Water 2x per day selected to account for SCAQMD Rule 403 minimum requirements. Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Improve Pedestrian Network onsite and connecting offsite. 0.01 miles to bus stop OCTA Chapman and Water. Energy Mitigation - Per 2019 Title 24 requirements a 30% improvement to lighting energy was selected Water Mitigation - Install low-flow fixtures and water-efficient irrigation Waste Mitigation - 50% reduction in solid waste selected to account for AB 341 Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - Emergency Backup Generator - 250 kW or 389 Hp, 0.5 hour/day and 26 hour per year Vehicle Trips - Trip Lengths set to 0.7 mile to account for relocation of existing Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 2 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 290.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 30.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 30.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 27,930.00 27,927.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.64 0.81 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.09 0.20 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.23 0.51 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.50 1.23 tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 26.00 tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 1.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 8.40 0.70 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 8.40 0.70 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 0.70 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 0.70 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 0.70 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 0.70 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 3 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer -- ---+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---t - - -- .. �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �··· -- 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 I 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 2.1610 22.4233 15.6267 0.0333 6.7025 1.0497 7.6201 3.4082 0.9799 4.2524 0.0000 3,328.576 8 3,328.576 8 0.6829 0.0000 3,345.649 5 2022 10.3233 15.6278 15.3039 0.0301 0.3385 0.7058 1.0443 0.0914 0.6765 0.7678 0.0000 2,825.217 4 2,825.217 4 0.5449 0.0000 2,836.943 4 Maximum 10.3233 22.4233 15.6267 0.0333 6.7025 1.0497 7.6201 3.4082 0.9799 4.2524 0.0000 3,328.576 8 3,328.576 8 0.6829 0.0000 3,345.649 5 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 2.1610 22.4233 15.6267 0.0333 3.0987 1.0497 4.0163 1.5560 0.9799 2.4003 0.0000 3,328.576 8 3,328.576 8 0.6829 0.0000 3,345.649 5 2022 10.3233 15.6278 15.3039 0.0301 0.3385 0.7058 1.0443 0.0914 0.6765 0.7678 0.0000 2,825.217 4 2,825.217 4 0.5449 0.0000 2,836.943 4 Maximum 10.3233 22.4233 15.6267 0.0333 3.0987 1.0497 4.0163 1.5560 0.9799 2.4003 0.0000 3,328.576 8 3,328.576 8 0.6829 0.0000 3,345.649 5 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.18 0.00 41.59 52.92 0.00 36.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 4 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer - ----t----- - ----t----- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----.----- ----.----- I I I I I I I I I I I I - I - ,----�---- ----.----- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----.----- ----.----- I I I I I I I I I I I I - ____ l ____ - ,----�---- I - - - - - - - - .... --•---+-·-·-·-·1'-·--·-·t----t I I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I ,----�----1------1 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I ,----�----1------1 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I ,----�----1------1 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I I ----.--------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I !liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii .... --,f ii ii ii iib ii ii ii iilii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil .... --•---+-·---·1"-·-·-·-1----t I I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I ----�----1-----1 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I ----�----1-----1 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I ----�----1-----1 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I I ----.---------41 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I !liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii .... --,f ii ii ii iib ii ii ii iilii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.7235 1.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0249 0.0249 7.0000e- 005 0.0265 Energy 7.9800e- 003 0.0726 0.0609 4.4000e- 004 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 87.0615 87.0615 1.6700e- 003 1.6000e- 003 87.5788 Mobile 1.7275 4.9535 7.5024 0.0126 0.6358 0.0149 0.6507 0.1700 0.0138 0.1838 1,295.618 7 1,295.618 7 0.1060 1,298.268 3 Stationary 0.1559 0.4357 0.3975 7.5000e- 004 0.0229 0.0229 0.0229 0.0229 79.7538 79.7538 0.0112 80.0334 Total 2.6149 5.4619 7.9725 0.0138 0.6358 0.0434 0.6791 0.1700 0.0423 0.2123 1,462.458 9 1,462.458 9 0.1189 1.6000e- 003 1,465.907 0 Unmitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 5 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer - - - ----�----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�--------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,----�----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�--------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,----�----�----�----1---------� - - - - ..,. __ ... __ .,. .,. .,. .,. ... __ -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�---------------t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,----�----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�--------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,----�----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�--------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,----�----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�--------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r----r----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�--------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----fii ii ii .b ii ii ii .b ii ii ii .b ii ii ii iilii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.7235 1.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0249 0.0249 7.0000e- 005 0.0265 Energy 7.9800e- 003 0.0726 0.0609 4.4000e- 004 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 87.0615 87.0615 1.6700e- 003 1.6000e- 003 87.5788 Mobile 1.7137 4.8736 7.1144 0.0109 0.4719 0.0138 0.4857 0.1262 0.0127 0.1389 1,120.567 8 1,120.567 8 0.0997 1,123.060 9 Stationary 0.1559 0.4357 0.3975 7.5000e- 004 0.0229 0.0229 0.0229 0.0229 79.7538 79.7538 0.0112 80.0334 Total 2.6011 5.3820 7.5845 0.0121 0.4719 0.0422 0.5142 0.1262 0.0412 0.1674 1,287.408 0 1,287.408 0 0.1126 1.6000e- 003 1,290.699 6 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.53 1.46 4.87 12.53 25.77 2.65 24.29 25.77 2.53 21.14 0.00 11.97 11.97 5.26 0.00 11.95 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 6 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer - - - ----t----t----t----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----1---------� - - - - .... --•---+-·---·1"-·-·-·-1"--•-•-•1"··---·1----1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----------------t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r----r----------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1• ii ii .b ii ii ii .b ii ii ii .b ii ii ii iilii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2021 1/28/2021 5 20 2 Grading Grading 1/29/2021 2/25/2021 5 20 3 Building Construction Building Construction 2/26/2021 4/7/2022 5 290 4 Paving Paving 4/8/2022 5/19/2022 5 30 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/20/2022 6/30/2022 5 30 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 47,561; Non-Residential Outdoor: 15,854; Striped Parking Area: 1,968 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 1.74 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 7 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer --1--1--1---r--· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i---• - - -r - - -r - - -r - - -L - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .... --•---r---r---r---L - - · I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - -r - - -r - - -r - - -, - - · I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .,_ __ .,. __ !_ __ !_ __ !_ __ J _ - . i---· . L •• I i---· • • ·� • • ·� • • ·� • • ·� • • I Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 5 13.00 6.00 168.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 6.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 24.00 11.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 8 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer i,..... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - ... - - - -- __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ -1,. _ - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i,..... ------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�-----+ - - i,..... •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• -1,. - i,..... � • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • .L • • • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----·---1----1----1----t - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .... ---·-- I -- I -- I --+"" -----·-----------+ - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .... ---•---�---�---�---L - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .,_ __ .,... + - - - I I I I I I I I ! ! ! I i i i I I I I I ! ! ! I i i i I I I I I .,_ __ .... - - .l. - .l. - .l. - -L - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----·---�---�---�---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I -----• - - -� - - -� - - -� - - .L - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----·--.L--.L--.L--+ - - -----· • • ·� • • ·� • • ·� • • -� • • I 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 1.8136 0.0000 1.8136 0.2746 0.0000 0.2746 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9930 19.6966 14.4925 0.0241 1.0409 1.0409 0.9715 0.9715 2,322.717 1 2,322.717 1 0.5940 2,337.565 8 Total 1.9930 19.6966 14.4925 0.0241 1.8136 1.0409 2.8545 0.2746 0.9715 1.2461 2,322.717 1 2,322.717 1 0.5940 2,337.565 8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 9 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer ----t--------- 1 I I I I I - - - - � - - - _..,__ � I I I I I I - - - - � - - - - ..... --------� I I I I I I - - - - � - - - _..,__ � I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- ... __ ... __ .,. .,. .,. __ -I I I I I I I I ----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I ----r--------- 1 I I I I I - - - - � - - - _..,__ � I I I I I I - - - - � - - - - ..... --------� I I I I I I - - - - � - - - _..,__ � I I I I I I - - - - � - - - - ..... --------� I I I I I I - - - - � - - - -1----------1 I I I I I I - - - - � - - - _..,__ � I I I I I I - - - - � - - - -1----------1 I I I I I I lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil---,1;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0605 2.1354 0.5866 6.3400e- 003 0.1463 6.7100e- 003 0.1530 0.0400 6.4200e- 003 0.0465 707.7990 707.7990 0.0734 709.6336 Vendor 0.0160 0.5629 0.1527 1.4800e- 003 0.0383 1.1700e- 003 0.0395 0.0110 1.1200e- 003 0.0122 161.2755 161.2755 0.0127 161.5917 Worker 0.0469 0.0284 0.3949 1.3700e- 003 0.1453 9.4000e- 004 0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e- 004 0.0394 136.7852 136.7852 2.9300e- 003 136.8585 Total 0.1234 2.7267 1.1341 9.1900e- 003 0.3299 8.8200e- 003 0.3387 0.0896 8.4100e- 003 0.0980 1,005.859 7 1,005.859 7 0.0890 1,008.083 7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.8161 0.0000 0.8161 0.1236 0.0000 0.1236 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9930 19.6966 14.4925 0.0241 1.0409 1.0409 0.9715 0.9715 0.0000 2,322.717 1 2,322.717 1 0.5940 2,337.565 8 Total 1.9930 19.6966 14.4925 0.0241 0.8161 1.0409 1.8570 0.1236 0.9715 1.0950 0.0000 2,322.717 1 2,322.717 1 0.5940 2,337.565 8 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 10 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ .,. __ ·-·-·1'··---· ... -- .... I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -------4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0605 2.1354 0.5866 6.3400e- 003 0.1463 6.7100e- 003 0.1530 0.0400 6.4200e- 003 0.0465 707.7990 707.7990 0.0734 709.6336 Vendor 0.0160 0.5629 0.1527 1.4800e- 003 0.0383 1.1700e- 003 0.0395 0.0110 1.1200e- 003 0.0122 161.2755 161.2755 0.0127 161.5917 Worker 0.0469 0.0284 0.3949 1.3700e- 003 0.1453 9.4000e- 004 0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e- 004 0.0394 136.7852 136.7852 2.9300e- 003 136.8585 Total 0.1234 2.7267 1.1341 9.1900e- 003 0.3299 8.8200e- 003 0.3387 0.0896 8.4100e- 003 0.0980 1,005.859 7 1,005.859 7 0.0890 1,008.083 7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 1,995.6114 1,995.6114 0.6454 2,011.7470 Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 6.5523 0.9158 7.4681 3.3675 0.8425 4.2100 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 11 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ .,. __ ·-·-·1'··---· ... -- .... I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -------4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0160 0.5629 0.1527 1.4800e- 003 0.0383 1.1700e- 003 0.0395 0.0110 1.1200e- 003 0.0122 161.2755 161.2755 0.0127 161.5917 Worker 0.0361 0.0218 0.3037 1.0600e- 003 0.1118 7.2000e- 004 0.1125 0.0296 6.7000e- 004 0.0303 105.2194 105.2194 2.2500e- 003 105.2758 Total 0.0521 0.5847 0.4564 2.5400e- 003 0.1501 1.8900e- 003 0.1520 0.0407 1.7900e- 003 0.0425 266.4949 266.4949 0.0149 266.8674 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 2.9486 0.0000 2.9486 1.5154 0.0000 1.5154 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 0.0000 1,995.6114 1,995.6114 0.6454 2,011.7470 Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 2.9486 0.9158 3.8643 1.5154 0.8425 2.3579 0.0000 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 12 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ .,. __ ·-·-·1'··---· ... -- .... I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -------4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0160 0.5629 0.1527 1.4800e- 003 0.0383 1.1700e- 003 0.0395 0.0110 1.1200e- 003 0.0122 161.2755 161.2755 0.0127 161.5917 Worker 0.0361 0.0218 0.3037 1.0600e- 003 0.1118 7.2000e- 004 0.1125 0.0296 6.7000e- 004 0.0303 105.2194 105.2194 2.2500e- 003 105.2758 Total 0.0521 0.5847 0.4564 2.5400e- 003 0.1501 1.8900e- 003 0.1520 0.0407 1.7900e- 003 0.0425 266.4949 266.4949 0.0149 266.8674 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 13 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer - ----t----t---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� - .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ...,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�-------�---4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I - - 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1• •• ·liiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill - - 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0294 1.0320 0.2799 2.7100e- 003 0.0703 2.1400e- 003 0.0724 0.0202 2.0500e- 003 0.0223 295.6718 295.6718 0.0232 296.2514 Worker 0.0866 0.0524 0.7290 2.5300e- 003 0.2683 1.7400e- 003 0.2700 0.0711 1.6000e- 003 0.0727 252.5266 252.5266 5.4100e- 003 252.6618 Total 0.1160 1.0844 1.0088 5.2400e- 003 0.3385 3.8800e- 003 0.3424 0.0914 3.6500e- 003 0.0950 548.1984 548.1984 0.0286 548.9132 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 14 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer - ----t----t---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� - .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ...,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�-------�---4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I - - 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1• •• ·liiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill - - 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0294 1.0320 0.2799 2.7100e- 003 0.0703 2.1400e- 003 0.0724 0.0202 2.0500e- 003 0.0223 295.6718 295.6718 0.0232 296.2514 Worker 0.0866 0.0524 0.7290 2.5300e- 003 0.2683 1.7400e- 003 0.2700 0.0711 1.6000e- 003 0.0727 252.5266 252.5266 5.4100e- 003 252.6618 Total 0.1160 1.0844 1.0088 5.2400e- 003 0.3385 3.8800e- 003 0.3424 0.0914 3.6500e- 003 0.0950 548.1984 548.1984 0.0286 548.9132 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 15 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer - ----t----t---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� - .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ...,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�-------�---4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I - - 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1• •• ·liiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill - - 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0276 0.9763 0.2702 2.6800e- 003 0.0703 1.8600e- 003 0.0721 0.0202 1.7800e- 003 0.0220 292.7679 292.7679 0.0225 293.3293 Worker 0.0819 0.0475 0.6804 2.4400e- 003 0.2683 1.7000e- 003 0.2700 0.0711 1.5700e- 003 0.0727 243.1683 243.1683 4.9100e- 003 243.2911 Total 0.1095 1.0238 0.9506 5.1200e- 003 0.3385 3.5600e- 003 0.3421 0.0914 3.3500e- 003 0.0947 535.9362 535.9362 0.0274 536.6204 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 16 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer - ----t----t---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� - .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ...,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�-------�---4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I - - 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1• •• ·liiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill - - 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0276 0.9763 0.2702 2.6800e- 003 0.0703 1.8600e- 003 0.0721 0.0202 1.7800e- 003 0.0220 292.7679 292.7679 0.0225 293.3293 Worker 0.0819 0.0475 0.6804 2.4400e- 003 0.2683 1.7000e- 003 0.2700 0.0711 1.5700e- 003 0.0727 243.1683 243.1683 4.9100e- 003 243.2911 Total 0.1095 1.0238 0.9506 5.1200e- 003 0.3385 3.5600e- 003 0.3421 0.0914 3.3500e- 003 0.0947 535.9362 535.9362 0.0274 536.6204 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Paving 0.1520 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0931 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 17 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ .,. __ ·-·-·1'··---· ... -- .... I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -------4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0512 0.0297 0.4252 1.5200e- 003 0.1677 1.0600e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.8000e- 004 0.0455 151.9802 151.9802 3.0700e- 003 152.0569 Total 0.0512 0.0297 0.4252 1.5200e- 003 0.1677 1.0600e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.8000e- 004 0.0455 151.9802 151.9802 3.0700e- 003 152.0569 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Paving 0.1520 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0931 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 18 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. __ ..,. I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... ------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... ------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -----4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0512 0.0297 0.4252 1.5200e- 003 0.1677 1.0600e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.8000e- 004 0.0455 151.9802 151.9802 3.0700e- 003 152.0569 Total 0.0512 0.0297 0.4252 1.5200e- 003 0.1677 1.0600e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.8000e- 004 0.0455 151.9802 151.9802 3.0700e- 003 152.0569 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 10.1017 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 10.3062 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 19 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. __ ..,. I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... ------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... ------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -----4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0171 9.8900e- 003 0.1417 5.1000e- 004 0.0559 3.5000e- 004 0.0562 0.0148 3.3000e- 004 0.0152 50.6601 50.6601 1.0200e- 003 50.6856 Total 0.0171 9.8900e- 003 0.1417 5.1000e- 004 0.0559 3.5000e- 004 0.0562 0.0148 3.3000e- 004 0.0152 50.6601 50.6601 1.0200e- 003 50.6856 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 10.1017 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 10.3062 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 20 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. __ ..,. I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... ------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... ------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -----4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Increase Transit Accessibility Improve Pedestrian Network 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0171 9.8900e- 003 0.1417 5.1000e- 004 0.0559 3.5000e- 004 0.0562 0.0148 3.3000e- 004 0.0152 50.6601 50.6601 1.0200e- 003 50.6856 Total 0.0171 9.8900e- 003 0.1417 5.1000e- 004 0.0559 3.5000e- 004 0.0562 0.0148 3.3000e- 004 0.0152 50.6601 50.6601 1.0200e- 003 50.6856 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 21 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -----4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I - - ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 1.7137 4.8736 7.1144 0.0109 0.4719 0.0138 0.4857 0.1262 0.0127 0.1389 1,120.567 8 1,120.567 8 0.0997 1,123.060 9 Unmitigated 1.7275 4.9535 7.5024 0.0126 0.6358 0.0149 0.6507 0.1700 0.0138 0.1838 1,295.618 7 1,295.618 7 0.1060 1,298.268 3 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Government Office Building 1,925.21 0.00 0.00 212,987 158,102 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 6.35 6.35 6.35 1,516 1,125 Total 1,931.57 6.35 6.35 214,502 159,227 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Government Office Building 0.70 0.70 0.70 33.00 62.00 5.00 50 34 16 Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.70 0.70 0.70 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 22 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer ----�---- • I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----L---- ..,. __ ..,. __ .,. __ ·-·-·· .... I I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1• ii ii.� ii ii ii ii I ...... - ,_ ........ - .... ·�. ·�. ·�. ·- - --+-+-+-· - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _.L_.L_.L_ ...... - ....... :··:··:·· - ............ • • II • • II • • II • • ___ .,..._,.••II•• II•• II•• --"---"---L • • I I I - ·--t---t---t- - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ........... -···�··�··�·· --1---1---1--- I I I I I - --1---1---1--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---·-···�--�··!·· 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 7.9800e- 003 0.0726 0.0609 4.4000e- 004 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 87.0615 87.0615 1.6700e- 003 1.6000e- 003 87.5788 NaturalGas Unmitigated 7.9800e- 003 0.0726 0.0609 4.4000e- 004 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 87.0615 87.0615 1.6700e- 003 1.6000e- 003 87.5788 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Install High Efficiency Lighting Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Government Office Building 0.561378 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826 0.015545 0.005795 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747 0.001542 0.004926 0.000594 0.000934 Parking Lot 0.561378 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826 0.015545 0.005795 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747 0.001542 0.004926 0.000594 0.000934 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.561378 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826 0.015545 0.005795 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747 0.001542 0.004926 0.000594 0.000934 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 23 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer ------t------t - - - ----�---- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ----� - - - - I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ----� - - - - I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I •••• L •••• I I - I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I --·-·-·· .... I I I I I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I - ----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I - ----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I - ----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - - ----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----� - - - - --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ----� - - - - I I I I I .. -� .. -� ... I I I I I - ----� - - - - I I ............. I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I •••• L •••• . . . . .. . . . . I 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Government Office Building 699.323 7.5400e- 003 0.0686 0.0576 4.1000e- 004 5.2100e- 003 5.2100e- 003 5.2100e- 003 5.2100e- 003 82.2733 82.2733 1.5800e- 003 1.5100e- 003 82.7622 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 40.6997 4.4000e- 004 3.9900e- 003 3.3500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 4.7882 4.7882 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 4.8167 Total 7.9800e- 003 0.0726 0.0609 4.3000e- 004 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 87.0615 87.0615 1.6700e- 003 1.6000e- 003 87.5788 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Government Office Building 0.699323 7.5400e- 003 0.0686 0.0576 4.1000e- 004 5.2100e- 003 5.2100e- 003 5.2100e- 003 5.2100e- 003 82.2733 82.2733 1.5800e- 003 1.5100e- 003 82.7622 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.0406997 4.4000e- 004 3.9900e- 003 3.3500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 4.7882 4.7882 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 4.8167 Total 7.9800e- 003 0.0726 0.0609 4.3000e- 004 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 87.0615 87.0615 1.6700e- 003 1.6000e- 003 87.5788 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 24 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer - - ----t----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----+-----� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I - - - _l _ - - -L - - - - ---- - - ----t----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----+-----� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I - - - _l - - - -L - - - - ---- - - - - ----·-- ... -·-·-·-- .. ---·-·-·· ...... ---i I I I I I I I I - - - -� - - - -r----+------1 I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----+-----� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil- ..;..;..;..; t .. .;.;..; k ; ; ; ; ;liiiiiiiiiii� I I I I I I I I 1---•---+- - - -L - - - _!, - - - - +----t ----·-- ... -·----··fl··-·-·--· ...... ---i I I I I I I I I - - - -� - - - -r----+------1 I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----+-----� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil- __ ..... ..;.;..; t .. ..;..;..; k ; ; ; ; ;liiiiiiiiiii� I I I I I I I I 1---•---+- - - -L - - - _!, _ - - - +----t 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.7235 1.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0249 0.0249 7.0000e- 005 0.0265 Unmitigated 0.7235 1.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0249 0.0249 7.0000e- 005 0.0265 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 25 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer ----�---- • I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----L .... I .... --•---+--·-·-·· .... I I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I m;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil---...fiiiiiiii�iiiiiiii 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.0830 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.6394 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0800e- 003 1.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0249 0.0249 7.0000e- 005 0.0265 Total 0.7235 1.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0249 0.0249 7.0000e- 005 0.0265 Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.0830 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.6394 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0800e- 003 1.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0249 0.0249 7.0000e- 005 0.0265 Total 0.7235 1.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0249 0.0249 7.0000e- 005 0.0265 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 26 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer - - - ----t----t---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� - - - ----t----t---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� - - - - - - - - .... --•---+--·-·-·1'··---·1'··-·-·-t----t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----------- I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I m;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil .... --•---+-·---·1'··-·-·-1'--·-·-· .... ---t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----------- I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I m;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Institute Recycling and Composting Services Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Install Low Flow Toilet Install Low Flow Shower Use Water Efficient Irrigation System 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Emergency Generator 1 0.5 26 190 0.73 Diesel Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 27 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer ...... -- ...... -- ...... -- ...... -- ---�··· 11.0 Vegetation 10.1 Stationary Sources ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Equipment Type lb/day lb/day Emergency Generator - Diesel (175 - 300 HP) 0.1559 0.4357 0.3975 7.5000e- 004 0.0229 0.0229 0.0229 0.0229 79.7538 79.7538 0.0112 80.0334 Total 0.1559 0.4357 0.3975 7.5000e- 004 0.0229 0.0229 0.0229 0.0229 79.7538 79.7538 0.0112 80.0334 Unmitigated/Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:36 AMPage 28 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Summer - - - 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1 •••••• li--iiiiiiiiiiiiiil 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Government Office Building 27.93 1000sqft 0.81 27,927.00 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 3.78 1000sqft 0.20 3,780.00 0 Parking Lot 56.00 Space 1.23 22,400.00 0 Parking Lot 26.00 Space 0.51 10,400.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 8 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 30 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2022Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters Orange County, Winter CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 1 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter - ---�---�---t - - . - I I I I - - L - - - ·--------+ - - . - •• •p •• •p •• � 0 0 I I I I - • • ·� • • ·�••·�••I Project Characteristics - Land Use - HQ Site 1.52 acres and West Parking Lot 1.23 acres Construction Phase - Construction starting January 2021 and finishing July 2022 Trips and VMT - 6 vendor trucks per day added to Demolition and Grading to account for water truck emission. Demolition - 1,695 Tons of parking lot debris to be removed from site Grading - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Water 2x per day selected to account for SCAQMD Rule 403 minimum requirements. Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Improve Pedestrian Network onsite and connecting offsite. 0.01 miles to bus stop OCTA Chapman and Water. Energy Mitigation - Per 2019 Title 24 requirements a 30% improvement to lighting energy was selected Water Mitigation - Install low-flow fixtures and water-efficient irrigation Waste Mitigation - 50% reduction in solid waste selected to account for AB 341 Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - Emergency Backup Generator - 250 kW or 389 Hp, 0.5 hour/day and 26 hour per year Vehicle Trips - Trip Lengths set to 0.7 mile to account for relocation of existing Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 2 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 290.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 30.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 30.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 27,930.00 27,927.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.64 0.81 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.09 0.20 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.23 0.51 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.50 1.23 tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 26.00 tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 1.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 8.40 0.70 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 8.40 0.70 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 0.70 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 0.70 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 0.70 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 0.70 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 3 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter -- ---+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---t - - -- .. �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �··· -- 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 I 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 2.1739 22.4500 15.6402 0.0331 6.7025 1.0499 7.6201 3.4082 0.9800 4.2525 0.0000 3,306.562 9 3,306.562 9 0.6850 0.0000 3,323.688 2 2022 10.3256 15.6295 15.2761 0.0300 0.3385 0.7058 1.0444 0.0914 0.6765 0.7679 0.0000 2,804.984 4 2,804.984 4 0.5448 0.0000 2,816.730 0 Maximum 10.3256 22.4500 15.6402 0.0331 6.7025 1.0499 7.6201 3.4082 0.9800 4.2525 0.0000 3,306.562 9 3,306.562 9 0.6850 0.0000 3,323.688 2 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2021 2.1739 22.4500 15.6402 0.0331 3.0987 1.0499 4.0164 1.5560 0.9800 2.4004 0.0000 3,306.562 9 3,306.562 9 0.6850 0.0000 3,323.688 2 2022 10.3256 15.6295 15.2761 0.0300 0.3385 0.7058 1.0444 0.0914 0.6765 0.7679 0.0000 2,804.984 4 2,804.984 4 0.5448 0.0000 2,816.730 0 Maximum 10.3256 22.4500 15.6402 0.0331 3.0987 1.0499 4.0164 1.5560 0.9800 2.4004 0.0000 3,306.562 9 3,306.562 9 0.6850 0.0000 3,323.688 2 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.18 0.00 41.59 52.92 0.00 36.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 4 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter - ----t----- - ----t----- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----.----- ----.----- I I I I I I I I I I I I - I - ,----�---- ----.----- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----.----- ----.----- I I I I I I I I I I I I - ____ l ____ - ,----�---- I - - - - - - - - .... --•---+-·-·-·-·1'-·--·-·t----t I I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I ,----�----1------1 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I ,----�----1------1 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I ,----�----1------1 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I I ----.--------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I !liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii .... --,f ii ii ii iib ii ii ii iilii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil .... --•---+-·---·1"-·-·-·-1----t I I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I ----�----1-----1 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I ----�----1-----1 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I ----�----1-----1 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I I ----.---------41 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I !liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii .... --,f ii ii ii iib ii ii ii iilii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.7235 1.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0249 0.0249 7.0000e- 005 0.0265 Energy 7.9800e- 003 0.0726 0.0609 4.4000e- 004 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 87.0615 87.0615 1.6700e- 003 1.6000e- 003 87.5788 Mobile 1.7009 4.9029 8.4387 0.0119 0.6358 0.0154 0.6511 0.1700 0.0142 0.1842 1,221.916 7 1,221.916 7 0.1155 1,224.803 8 Stationary 0.1559 0.4357 0.3975 7.5000e- 004 0.0229 0.0229 0.0229 0.0229 79.7538 79.7538 0.0112 80.0334 Total 2.5883 5.4113 8.9088 0.0131 0.6358 0.0438 0.6796 0.1700 0.0427 0.2127 1,388.756 9 1,388.756 9 0.1284 1.6000e- 003 1,392.442 5 Unmitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 5 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter - - - ----�----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�--------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,----�----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�--------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,----�----�----�----1---------� - - - - ..,. __ ... __ .,. .,. .,. .,. ... __ -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�---------------t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,----�----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�--------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,----�----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�--------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,----�----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�--------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r----r----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�--------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----fii ii ii .b ii ii ii .b ii ii ii .b ii ii ii iilii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.7235 1.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0249 0.0249 7.0000e- 005 0.0265 Energy 7.9800e- 003 0.0726 0.0609 4.4000e- 004 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 87.0615 87.0615 1.6700e- 003 1.6000e- 003 87.5788 Mobile 1.6873 4.8183 8.0845 0.0103 0.4719 0.0142 0.4861 0.1262 0.0131 0.1393 1,054.379 9 1,054.379 9 0.1094 1,057.1142 Stationary 0.1559 0.4357 0.3975 7.5000e- 004 0.0229 0.0229 0.0229 0.0229 79.7538 79.7538 0.0112 80.0334 Total 2.5747 5.3267 8.5546 0.0115 0.4719 0.0427 0.5146 0.1262 0.0416 0.1678 1,221.220 1 1,221.220 1 0.1223 1.6000e- 003 1,224.752 9 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.52 1.56 3.98 12.57 25.77 2.65 24.28 25.77 2.53 21.10 0.00 12.06 12.06 4.76 0.00 12.04 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 6 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter - - - ----t----t----t----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----1---------� - - - - .... --•---+-·---·1"-·-·-·-1"--•-•-•1"··---·1----1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----------------t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r----r----------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1• ii ii .b ii ii ii .b ii ii ii .b ii ii ii iilii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2021 1/28/2021 5 20 2 Grading Grading 1/29/2021 2/25/2021 5 20 3 Building Construction Building Construction 2/26/2021 4/7/2022 5 290 4 Paving Paving 4/8/2022 5/19/2022 5 30 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/20/2022 6/30/2022 5 30 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 47,561; Non-Residential Outdoor: 15,854; Striped Parking Area: 1,968 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 1.74 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 7 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter --1--1--1---r--· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i---• - - -r - - -r - - -r - - -L - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .... --•---r---r---r---L - - · I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - -r - - -r - - -r - - -, - - · I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .,_ __ .,. __ !_ __ !_ __ !_ __ J _ - . i---· . L •• I i---· • • ·� • • ·� • • ·� • • ·� • • I Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 5 13.00 6.00 168.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 6.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 24.00 11.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 8 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter i,..... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - ... - - - -- __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ -1,. _ - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i,..... ------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�-----+ - - i,..... •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• -1,. - i,..... � • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • .L • • • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----·---1----1----1----t - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .... ---·-- I -- I -- I --+"" -----·-----------+ - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .... ---•---�---�---�---L - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .,_ __ .,... + - - - I I I I I I I I ! ! ! I i i i I I I I I ! ! ! I i i i I I I I I .,_ __ .... - - .l. - .l. - .l. - -L - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----·---�---�---�---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I -----• - - -� - - -� - - -� - - .L - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----·--.L--.L--.L--+ - - -----· • • ·� • • ·� • • ·� • • -� • • I 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 1.8136 0.0000 1.8136 0.2746 0.0000 0.2746 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9930 19.6966 14.4925 0.0241 1.0409 1.0409 0.9715 0.9715 2,322.717 1 2,322.717 1 0.5940 2,337.565 8 Total 1.9930 19.6966 14.4925 0.0241 1.8136 1.0409 2.8545 0.2746 0.9715 1.2461 2,322.717 1 2,322.717 1 0.5940 2,337.565 8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 9 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter ----t--------- 1 I I I I I - - - - � - - - _..,__ � I I I I I I - - - - � - - - - ..... --------� I I I I I I - - - - � - - - _..,__ � I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- ... __ ... __ .,. .,. .,. __ -I I I I I I I I ----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I ----r--------- 1 I I I I I - - - - � - - - _..,__ � I I I I I I - - - - � - - - - ..... --------� I I I I I I - - - - � - - - _..,__ � I I I I I I - - - - � - - - - ..... --------� I I I I I I - - - - � - - - -1----------1 I I I I I I - - - - � - - - _..,__ � I I I I I I - - - - � - - - -1----------1 I I I I I I lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil---,1;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0620 2.1606 0.6158 6.2400e- 003 0.1463 6.8300e- 003 0.1531 0.0400 6.5400e- 003 0.0466 697.0743 697.0743 0.0750 698.9499 Vendor 0.0168 0.5616 0.1675 1.4400e- 003 0.0383 1.2100e- 003 0.0396 0.0110 1.1600e- 003 0.0122 157.3134 157.3134 0.0133 157.6450 Worker 0.0531 0.0312 0.3644 1.3000e- 003 0.1453 9.4000e- 004 0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e- 004 0.0394 129.4582 129.4582 2.7700e- 003 129.5275 Total 0.1319 2.7534 1.1477 8.9800e- 003 0.3299 8.9800e- 003 0.3389 0.0896 8.5700e- 003 0.0982 983.8459 983.8459 0.0911 986.1224 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.8161 0.0000 0.8161 0.1236 0.0000 0.1236 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9930 19.6966 14.4925 0.0241 1.0409 1.0409 0.9715 0.9715 0.0000 2,322.717 1 2,322.717 1 0.5940 2,337.565 8 Total 1.9930 19.6966 14.4925 0.0241 0.8161 1.0409 1.8570 0.1236 0.9715 1.0950 0.0000 2,322.717 1 2,322.717 1 0.5940 2,337.565 8 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 10 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ .,. __ ·-·-·1'··---· ... -- .... I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -------4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0620 2.1606 0.6158 6.2400e- 003 0.1463 6.8300e- 003 0.1531 0.0400 6.5400e- 003 0.0466 697.0743 697.0743 0.0750 698.9499 Vendor 0.0168 0.5616 0.1675 1.4400e- 003 0.0383 1.2100e- 003 0.0396 0.0110 1.1600e- 003 0.0122 157.3134 157.3134 0.0133 157.6450 Worker 0.0531 0.0312 0.3644 1.3000e- 003 0.1453 9.4000e- 004 0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e- 004 0.0394 129.4582 129.4582 2.7700e- 003 129.5275 Total 0.1319 2.7534 1.1477 8.9800e- 003 0.3299 8.9800e- 003 0.3389 0.0896 8.5700e- 003 0.0982 983.8459 983.8459 0.0911 986.1224 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 1,995.6114 1,995.6114 0.6454 2,011.7470 Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 6.5523 0.9158 7.4681 3.3675 0.8425 4.2100 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 11 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ .,. __ ·-·-·1'··---· ... -- .... I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -------4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0168 0.5616 0.1675 1.4400e- 003 0.0383 1.2100e- 003 0.0396 0.0110 1.1600e- 003 0.0122 157.3134 157.3134 0.0133 157.6450 Worker 0.0409 0.0240 0.2803 1.0000e- 003 0.1118 7.2000e- 004 0.1125 0.0296 6.7000e- 004 0.0303 99.5832 99.5832 2.1300e- 003 99.6365 Total 0.0577 0.5856 0.4478 2.4400e- 003 0.1501 1.9300e- 003 0.1521 0.0407 1.8300e- 003 0.0425 256.8966 256.8966 0.0154 257.2815 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 2.9486 0.0000 2.9486 1.5154 0.0000 1.5154 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 0.0000 1,995.6114 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.7470 Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 2.9486 0.9158 3.8643 1.5154 0.8425 2.3579 0.0000 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 12 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ .,. __ ·-·-·1'··---· ... -- .... I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -------4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0168 0.5616 0.1675 1.4400e- 003 0.0383 1.2100e- 003 0.0396 0.0110 1.1600e- 003 0.0122 157.3134 157.3134 0.0133 157.6450 Worker 0.0409 0.0240 0.2803 1.0000e- 003 0.1118 7.2000e- 004 0.1125 0.0296 6.7000e- 004 0.0303 99.5832 99.5832 2.1300e- 003 99.6365 Total 0.0577 0.5856 0.4478 2.4400e- 003 0.1501 1.9300e- 003 0.1521 0.0407 1.8300e- 003 0.0425 256.8966 256.8966 0.0154 257.2815 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 13 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter - ----t----t---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� - .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ...,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�-------�---4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I - - 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1• •• ·liiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill - - 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0308 1.0295 0.3070 2.6500e- 003 0.0703 2.2200e- 003 0.0725 0.0202 2.1300e- 003 0.0224 288.4079 288.4079 0.0243 289.0159 Worker 0.0981 0.0576 0.6726 2.4000e- 003 0.2683 1.7400e- 003 0.2700 0.0711 1.6000e- 003 0.0727 238.9997 238.9997 5.1200e- 003 239.1277 Total 0.1289 1.0871 0.9797 5.0500e- 003 0.3385 3.9600e- 003 0.3425 0.0914 3.7300e- 003 0.0951 527.4076 527.4076 0.0294 528.1435 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 14 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter - ----t----t---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� - .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ...,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�-------�---4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I - - 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1• •• ·liiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill - - 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0308 1.0295 0.3070 2.6500e- 003 0.0703 2.2200e- 003 0.0725 0.0202 2.1300e- 003 0.0224 288.4079 288.4079 0.0243 289.0159 Worker 0.0981 0.0576 0.6726 2.4000e- 003 0.2683 1.7400e- 003 0.2700 0.0711 1.6000e- 003 0.0727 238.9997 238.9997 5.1200e- 003 239.1277 Total 0.1289 1.0871 0.9797 5.0500e- 003 0.3385 3.9600e- 003 0.3425 0.0914 3.7300e- 003 0.0951 527.4076 527.4076 0.0294 528.1435 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 15 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter - ----t----t---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� - .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ...,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�-------�---4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I - - 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1• •• ·liiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill - - 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0290 0.9733 0.2961 2.6200e- 003 0.0703 1.9400e- 003 0.0722 0.0202 1.8500e- 003 0.0221 285.5482 285.5482 0.0235 286.1360 Worker 0.0929 0.0522 0.6268 2.3100e- 003 0.2683 1.7000e- 003 0.2700 0.0711 1.5700e- 003 0.0727 230.1549 230.1549 4.6400e- 003 230.2710 Total 0.1219 1.0255 0.9229 4.9300e- 003 0.3385 3.6400e- 003 0.3422 0.0914 3.4200e- 003 0.0948 515.7031 515.7031 0.0282 516.4070 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 16 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter - ----t----t---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� - .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ...,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�-------�---4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I - - 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1• •• ·liiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill - - 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0290 0.9733 0.2961 2.6200e- 003 0.0703 1.9400e- 003 0.0722 0.0202 1.8500e- 003 0.0221 285.5482 285.5482 0.0235 286.1360 Worker 0.0929 0.0522 0.6268 2.3100e- 003 0.2683 1.7000e- 003 0.2700 0.0711 1.5700e- 003 0.0727 230.1549 230.1549 4.6400e- 003 230.2710 Total 0.1219 1.0255 0.9229 4.9300e- 003 0.3385 3.6400e- 003 0.3422 0.0914 3.4200e- 003 0.0948 515.7031 515.7031 0.0282 516.4070 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Paving 0.1520 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0931 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 17 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ .,. __ ·-·-·1'··---· ... -- .... I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -------4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0581 0.0326 0.3918 1.4400e- 003 0.1677 1.0600e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.8000e- 004 0.0455 143.8468 143.8468 2.9000e- 003 143.9194 Total 0.0581 0.0326 0.3918 1.4400e- 003 0.1677 1.0600e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.8000e- 004 0.0455 143.8468 143.8468 2.9000e- 003 143.9194 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Paving 0.1520 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0931 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 18 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. __ ..,. I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... ------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... ------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -----4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0581 0.0326 0.3918 1.4400e- 003 0.1677 1.0600e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.8000e- 004 0.0455 143.8468 143.8468 2.9000e- 003 143.9194 Total 0.0581 0.0326 0.3918 1.4400e- 003 0.1677 1.0600e- 003 0.1687 0.0445 9.8000e- 004 0.0455 143.8468 143.8468 2.9000e- 003 143.9194 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 10.1017 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 10.3062 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 19 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. __ ..,. I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... ------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... ------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -----4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0194 0.0109 0.1306 4.8000e- 004 0.0559 3.5000e- 004 0.0562 0.0148 3.3000e- 004 0.0152 47.9489 47.9489 9.7000e- 004 47.9731 Total 0.0194 0.0109 0.1306 4.8000e- 004 0.0559 3.5000e- 004 0.0562 0.0148 3.3000e- 004 0.0152 47.9489 47.9489 9.7000e- 004 47.9731 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 10.1017 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 10.3062 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 20 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. __ ..,. I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... ------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... ------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -----4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Increase Transit Accessibility Improve Pedestrian Network 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0194 0.0109 0.1306 4.8000e- 004 0.0559 3.5000e- 004 0.0562 0.0148 3.3000e- 004 0.0152 47.9489 47.9489 9.7000e- 004 47.9731 Total 0.0194 0.0109 0.1306 4.8000e- 004 0.0559 3.5000e- 004 0.0562 0.0148 3.3000e- 004 0.0152 47.9489 47.9489 9.7000e- 004 47.9731 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 21 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -----4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I - - ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 1.6873 4.8183 8.0845 0.0103 0.4719 0.0142 0.4861 0.1262 0.0131 0.1393 1,054.379 9 1,054.379 9 0.1094 1,057.1142 Unmitigated 1.7009 4.9029 8.4387 0.0119 0.6358 0.0154 0.6511 0.1700 0.0142 0.1842 1,221.916 7 1,221.916 7 0.1155 1,224.803 8 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Government Office Building 1,925.21 0.00 0.00 212,987 158,102 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 6.35 6.35 6.35 1,516 1,125 Total 1,931.57 6.35 6.35 214,502 159,227 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Government Office Building 0.70 0.70 0.70 33.00 62.00 5.00 50 34 16 Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.70 0.70 0.70 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 22 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter ----�---- • I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----L---- ..,. __ ..,. __ .,. __ ·-·-·· .... I I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1• ii ii.� ii ii ii ii I ...... - ,_ ........ - .... ·�. ·�. ·�. ·- - --+-+-+-· - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _.L_.L_.L_ ...... - ....... :··:··:·· - ............ • • II • • II • • II • • ___ .,..._,.••II•• II•• II•• --"---"---L • • I I I - ·--t---t---t- - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ........... -···�··�··�·· --1---1---1--- I I I I I - --1---1---1--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---·-···�--�··!·· 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 7.9800e- 003 0.0726 0.0609 4.4000e- 004 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 87.0615 87.0615 1.6700e- 003 1.6000e- 003 87.5788 NaturalGas Unmitigated 7.9800e- 003 0.0726 0.0609 4.4000e- 004 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 87.0615 87.0615 1.6700e- 003 1.6000e- 003 87.5788 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Install High Efficiency Lighting Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Government Office Building 0.561378 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826 0.015545 0.005795 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747 0.001542 0.004926 0.000594 0.000934 Parking Lot 0.561378 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826 0.015545 0.005795 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747 0.001542 0.004926 0.000594 0.000934 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.561378 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826 0.015545 0.005795 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747 0.001542 0.004926 0.000594 0.000934 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 23 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter ------t------t - - - ----�---- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ----� - - - - I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ----� - - - - I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I •••• L •••• I I - I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I --·-·-·· .... I I I I I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I - ----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I - ----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I - ----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - - ----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----� - - - - --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ----� - - - - I I I I I .. -� .. -� ... I I I I I - ----� - - - - I I ............. I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I •••• L •••• . . . . .. . . . . I 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Government Office Building 699.323 7.5400e- 003 0.0686 0.0576 4.1000e- 004 5.2100e- 003 5.2100e- 003 5.2100e- 003 5.2100e- 003 82.2733 82.2733 1.5800e- 003 1.5100e- 003 82.7622 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 40.6997 4.4000e- 004 3.9900e- 003 3.3500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 4.7882 4.7882 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 4.8167 Total 7.9800e- 003 0.0726 0.0609 4.3000e- 004 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 87.0615 87.0615 1.6700e- 003 1.6000e- 003 87.5788 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Government Office Building 0.699323 7.5400e- 003 0.0686 0.0576 4.1000e- 004 5.2100e- 003 5.2100e- 003 5.2100e- 003 5.2100e- 003 82.2733 82.2733 1.5800e- 003 1.5100e- 003 82.7622 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.0406997 4.4000e- 004 3.9900e- 003 3.3500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 4.7882 4.7882 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 4.8167 Total 7.9800e- 003 0.0726 0.0609 4.3000e- 004 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 5.5100e- 003 87.0615 87.0615 1.6700e- 003 1.6000e- 003 87.5788 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 24 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter - - ----t----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----+-----� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I - - - _l _ - - -L - - - - ---- - - ----t----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----+-----� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I - - - _l - - - -L - - - - ---- - - - - ----·-- ... -·-·-·-- .. ---·-·-·· ...... ---i I I I I I I I I - - - -� - - - -r----+------1 I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----+-----� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil- ..;..;..;..; t .. .;.;..; k ; ; ; ; ;liiiiiiiiiii� I I I I I I I I 1---•---+- - - -L - - - _!, - - - - +----t ----·-- ... -·----··fl··-·-·--· ...... ---i I I I I I I I I - - - -� - - - -r----+------1 I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----+-----� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil- __ ..... ..;.;..; t .. ..;..;..; k ; ; ; ; ;liiiiiiiiiii� I I I I I I I I 1---•---+- - - -L - - - _!, _ - - - +----t 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.7235 1.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0249 0.0249 7.0000e- 005 0.0265 Unmitigated 0.7235 1.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0249 0.0249 7.0000e- 005 0.0265 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 25 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter ----�---- • I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----L .... I .... --•---+--·-·-·· .... I I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I m;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil---...fiiiiiiii�iiiiiiii 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.0830 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.6394 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0800e- 003 1.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0249 0.0249 7.0000e- 005 0.0265 Total 0.7235 1.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0249 0.0249 7.0000e- 005 0.0265 Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.0830 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.6394 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0800e- 003 1.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0249 0.0249 7.0000e- 005 0.0265 Total 0.7235 1.1000e- 004 0.0116 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0249 0.0249 7.0000e- 005 0.0265 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 26 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter - - - ----t----t---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� - - - ----t----t---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� - - - - - - - - .... --•---+--·-·-·1'··---·1'··-·-·-t----t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----------- I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I m;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil .... --•---+-·---·1'··-·-·-1'--·-·-· .... ---t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----------- I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I m;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Institute Recycling and Composting Services Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Install Low Flow Toilet Install Low Flow Shower Use Water Efficient Irrigation System 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Emergency Generator 1 0.5 26 190 0.73 Diesel Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 27 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter ...... -- ...... -- ...... -- ...... -- ---�··· 11.0 Vegetation 10.1 Stationary Sources ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Equipment Type lb/day lb/day Emergency Generator - Diesel (175 - 300 HP) 0.1559 0.4357 0.3975 7.5000e- 004 0.0229 0.0229 0.0229 0.0229 79.7538 79.7538 0.0112 80.0334 Total 0.1559 0.4357 0.3975 7.5000e- 004 0.0229 0.0229 0.0229 0.0229 79.7538 79.7538 0.0112 80.0334 Unmitigated/Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:39 AMPage 28 of 28 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Winter - - - 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1 •••••• li--iiiiiiiiiiiiiil Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Appendix B APPENDIX B EMFAC2017 Model Printouts EMFAC2017 (v1.0.2) Emissions InventoryRegion Type: Air BasinRegion: SOUTH COASTCalendar Year: 2021Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel ConsumptionRegion Calendar Year Vehicle CatModel Year Speed Fuel Population VMT Trips Fuel ConsumptionSOUTH COA2021 HHDT Aggregated Aggregated GAS 81 7629 1628 1.9SOUTH COA2021 LDA Aggregated Aggregated GAS 6276234 246181276 29647186 8195.8SOUTH COA2021 LDT1 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 695146 26066042 3200417 1009.6SOUTH COA2021 LDT2 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 2144804 81991236 10052342 3441.7SOUTH COA2021 LHDT1 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 172430 6230805 2568953 598.1SOUTH COA2021 LHDT2 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 28914 1014315 430773 111.8SOUTH COA2021 MCY Aggregated Aggregated GAS 279209 1958677 558419 53.9SOUTH COA2021 MDV Aggregated Aggregated GAS 1520877 54421173 7026646 2808.6SOUTH COA2021 MH Aggregated Aggregated GAS 34556 327721 3457 64.5SOUTH COA2021 MHDT Aggregated Aggregated GAS 24684 1325210 493870 264.5SOUTH COA2021 OBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 5845 246477 116955 49.6SOUTH COA2021 SBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 2415 98099 9660 10.9SOUTH COA2021 UBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 944 88729 3776 18.5vehicle miles per day (All Categories) 419957391 16,629 1,000 gall per day16,629,188 gallons per dayFleet Avg Miles per gallon 25.3 EMFAC2017 (v1.0.2) Emissions InventoryRegion Type: Air BasinRegion: SOUTH COASTCalendar Year: 2021Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel ConsumptionRegion Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationVMT Trips Fuel ConsumptionSOUTH COA2021 HHDT AggregatedAggregatedDSL 96727 11545820 974406 1774SOUTH COA2021 LDA AggregatedAggregatedDSL 53710 2185239 254840 46SOUTH COA2021 LDT1 AggregatedAggregatedDSL 406 9520 1420 0SOUTH COA2021 LDT2 AggregatedAggregatedDSL 12472 548394 61718 16SOUTH COA2021 LHDT1 AggregatedAggregatedDSL 109610 4489670 1378756 211SOUTH COA2021 LHDT2 AggregatedAggregatedDSL 43242 1730629 543933 90SOUTH COA2021 MDV AggregatedAggregatedDSL 29604 1222112 145605 46SOUTH COA2021 MH AggregatedAggregatedDSL 11829 115366 1183 11SOUTH COA2021 MHDT AggregatedAggregatedDSL 119075 7535147 1192855 727SOUTH COA2021 OBUS AggregatedAggregatedDSL 4131 308887 40390 38SOUTH COA2021 SBUS AggregatedAggregatedDSL 6314 199477 72863 27SOUTH COA2021 UBUS AggregatedAggregatedDSL 14 1478 57 0Diesel Truck (HHDT, MDV, MHDT) vehicle miles per day 20,303,080 2,548 1,000 gall per day2,547,681 gallons per dayDiesel Truck Fleet Avg Miles per gallon 8.0 Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Orange Appendix C APPENDIX C CalEEMod Model Annual Printouts 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Government Office Building 27.93 1000sqft 0.81 27,927.00 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 3.78 1000sqft 0.20 3,780.00 0 Parking Lot 56.00 Space 1.23 22,400.00 0 Parking Lot 26.00 Space 0.51 10,400.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 8 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 30 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2022Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters Orange County, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 1 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - ---�---�---t - - . - I I I I - - L - - - ·--------+ - - . - •• •p •• •p •• � 0 0 I I I I - • • ·� • • ·�••·�••I Project Characteristics - Land Use - HQ Site 1.52 acres and West Parking Lot 1.23 acres Construction Phase - Construction starting January 2021 and finishing July 2022 Trips and VMT - 6 vendor trucks per day added to Demolition and Grading to account for water truck emission. Demolition - 1,695 Tons of parking lot debris to be removed from site Grading - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Water 2x per day selected to account for SCAQMD Rule 403 minimum requirements. Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Improve Pedestrian Network onsite and connecting offsite. 0.01 miles to bus stop OCTA Chapman and Water. Energy Mitigation - Per 2019 Title 24 requirements a 30% improvement to lighting energy was selected Water Mitigation - Install low-flow fixtures and water-efficient irrigation Waste Mitigation - 50% reduction in solid waste selected to account for AB 341 Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - Emergency Backup Generator - 250 kW or 389 Hp, 0.5 hour/day and 26 hour per year Vehicle Trips - Trip Lengths set to 0.7 mile to account for relocation of existing Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 2 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 290.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 30.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 30.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 27,930.00 27,927.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.64 0.81 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.09 0.20 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.23 0.51 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.50 1.23 tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 26.00 tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 1.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 8.40 0.70 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 8.40 0.70 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 0.70 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 0.70 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 0.70 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 0.70 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 3 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual -- ---+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---t - - -- .. �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �-· �··· -- 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 ·� 0 0 I 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 0.2790 2.3265 1.9762 3.8900e- 003 0.1251 0.1104 0.2356 0.0476 0.1052 0.1528 0.0000 333.6701 333.6701 0.0602 0.0000 335.1759 2022 0.2399 0.7016 0.7378 1.3800e- 003 0.0148 0.0329 0.0477 3.9800e- 003 0.0313 0.0353 0.0000 117.7756 117.7756 0.0224 0.0000 118.3347 Maximum 0.2790 2.3265 1.9762 3.8900e- 003 0.1251 0.1104 0.2356 0.0476 0.1052 0.1528 0.0000 333.6701 333.6701 0.0602 0.0000 335.1759 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 0.2790 2.3265 1.9762 3.8900e- 003 0.0791 0.1104 0.1896 0.0276 0.1052 0.1328 0.0000 333.6698 333.6698 0.0602 0.0000 335.1756 2022 0.2399 0.7016 0.7378 1.3800e- 003 0.0148 0.0329 0.0477 3.9800e- 003 0.0313 0.0353 0.0000 117.7754 117.7754 0.0224 0.0000 118.3346 Maximum 0.2790 2.3265 1.9762 3.8900e- 003 0.0791 0.1104 0.1896 0.0276 0.1052 0.1328 0.0000 333.6698 333.6698 0.0602 0.0000 335.1756 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.89 0.00 16.24 38.80 0.00 10.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 4 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - ----t----- - ----t----- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----.----- ----.----- I I I I I I I I I I I I - I - ,----�---- ----.----- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----.----- ----.----- I I I I I I I I I I I I - ____ l ____ - ,----�---- I - - - - - - - - .... --•---+-·-·-·-·1'-·--·-·t----t I I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I ,----�----1------1 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I ,----�----1------1 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I ,----�----1------1 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I I ----.--------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I !liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii .... --,f ii ii ii iib ii ii ii iilii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil .... --•---+-·---·1"-·-·-·-1----t I I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I ----�----1-----1 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I ----�----1-----1 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I ----�----1-----1 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I I ----.---------41 I I I I I I ----�--------41 I I I I I I !liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii .... --,f ii ii ii iib ii ii ii iilii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.1320 1.0000e- 005 1.4500e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.8200e- 003 2.8200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0100e- 003 Energy 1.4600e- 003 0.0132 0.0111 8.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 147.5670 147.5670 5.7700e- 003 1.4000e- 003 148.1290 Mobile 0.2101 0.6458 1.0713 1.5900e- 003 0.0814 1.9600e- 003 0.0833 0.0218 1.8200e- 003 0.0236 0.0000 148.1528 148.1528 0.0132 0.0000 148.4815 Stationary 4.0500e- 003 0.0113 0.0103 2.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.8811 1.8811 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.8877 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.9923 0.0000 5.9923 0.3541 0.0000 14.8457 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0376 38.6845 40.7221 0.2109 5.2700e- 003 47.5652 Total 0.3476 0.6704 1.0942 1.6900e- 003 0.0814 3.5800e- 003 0.0849 0.0218 3.4400e- 003 0.0252 8.0299 336.2883 344.3182 0.5842 6.6700e- 003 360.9120 Unmitigated Operational Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 1-1-2021 3-31-2021 0.7068 0.7068 2 4-1-2021 6-30-2021 0.6264 0.6264 3 7-1-2021 9-30-2021 0.6333 0.6333 4 10-1-2021 12-31-2021 0.6338 0.6338 5 1-1-2022 3-31-2022 0.5659 0.5659 6 4-1-2022 6-30-2022 0.3777 0.3777 Highest 0.7068 0.7068 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 5 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - - - ----�----�----�----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,----�----�----�----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' - - - - � - - - - � - - - - � - - - - � - - - - � - - - _...,._ � - - - - ..,. __ ... __ ..., .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. ... __ ...,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----�----�---------------t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,----�----�----�----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,----�----�----�----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,----�----�----�----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r----r----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1 ii ii ii .b ii ii ii .b ii ii ii .b ii ii ii .b ii ii ii .b ii ii ii iilii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii� I 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.1320 1.0000e- 005 1.4500e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.8200e- 003 2.8200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0100e- 003 Energy 1.4600e- 003 0.0132 0.0111 8.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 134.1761 134.1761 5.2200e- 003 1.2900e- 003 134.6902 Mobile 0.2083 0.6345 1.0240 1.3800e- 003 0.0604 1.8100e- 003 0.0622 0.0162 1.6800e- 003 0.0179 0.0000 128.1390 128.1390 0.0124 0.0000 128.4495 Stationary 4.0500e- 003 0.0113 0.0103 2.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.8811 1.8811 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.8877 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.9962 0.0000 2.9962 0.1771 0.0000 7.4228 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6301 32.6209 34.2510 0.1688 4.2300e- 003 39.7314 Total 0.3458 0.6591 1.0469 1.4800e- 003 0.0604 3.4300e- 003 0.0638 0.0162 3.3000e- 003 0.0195 4.6263 296.8200 301.4462 0.3638 5.5200e- 003 312.1847 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.51 1.68 4.32 12.43 25.77 4.19 24.86 25.79 4.07 22.83 42.39 11.74 12.45 37.74 17.24 13.50 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 6 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - - - ----t----t----t----t----t---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - - - � - - - - � - - - - � - - - - � - - - - � - - - _..,_ � - - - - .... --•---+-·---·1'··-·-·-1'--·-·-·1'··---·1'··-·-·-1'--·-·-·t---....i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----�----�--------------t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r----r----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----�----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1• ii ii .b ii ii ii .b ii ii ii .b ii ii ii .b ii ii ii .b ii ii ii iilii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I I Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2021 1/28/2021 5 20 2 Grading Grading 1/29/2021 2/25/2021 5 20 3 Building Construction Building Construction 2/26/2021 4/7/2022 5 290 4 Paving Paving 4/8/2022 5/19/2022 5 30 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/20/2022 6/30/2022 5 30 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 47,561; Non-Residential Outdoor: 15,854; Striped Parking Area: 1,968 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 1.74 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 7 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual --1--1--1---r--· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i---• - - -r - - -r - - -r - - -L - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .... --•---r---r---r---L - - · I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - -r - - -r - - -r - - -, - - · I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .,_ __ .,. __ !_ __ !_ __ !_ __ J _ - . i---· . L •• I i---· • • ·� • • ·� • • ·� • • ·� • • I Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 5 13.00 6.00 168.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 6.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 24.00 11.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 8 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual i,..... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - .... - - ... - - - -- __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ ..._ __ -1,. _ - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i,..... ------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�------�-----+ - - i,..... •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• .L •• -1,. - i,..... � • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • .L • • • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----·---1----1----1----t - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .... ---·-- I -- I -- I --+"" -----·-----------+ - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .... ---•---�---�---�---L - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .,_ __ .,... + - - - I I I I I I I I ! ! ! I i i i I I I I I ! ! ! I i i i I I I I I .,_ __ .... - - .l. - .l. - .l. - -L - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----·---�---�---�---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I -----• - - -� - - -� - - -� - - .L - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----·--.L--.L--.L--+ - - -----· • • ·� • • ·� • • ·� • • -� • • I 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0181 0.0000 0.0181 2.7500e- 003 0.0000 2.7500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0199 0.1970 0.1449 2.4000e- 004 0.0104 0.0104 9.7100e- 003 9.7100e- 003 0.0000 21.0713 21.0713 5.3900e- 003 0.0000 21.2060 Total 0.0199 0.1970 0.1449 2.4000e- 004 0.0181 0.0104 0.0286 2.7500e- 003 9.7100e- 003 0.0125 0.0000 21.0713 21.0713 5.3900e- 003 0.0000 21.2060 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 9 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual ----t--------- 1 I I I I I - - - - � - - - _..,__ � I I I I I I - - - - � - - - - ..... --------� I I I I I I - - - - � - - - _..,__ � I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- ... __ ... __ .,. .,. .,. __ -I I I I I I I I ----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I ----r--------- 1 I I I I I - - - - � - - - _..,__ � I I I I I I - - - - � - - - - ..... --------� I I I I I I - - - - � - - - _..,__ � I I I I I I - - - - � - - - - ..... --------� I I I I I I - - - - � - - - -1----------1 I I I I I I - - - - � - - - _..,__ � I I I I I I - - - - � - - - -1----------1 I I I I I I lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil---,1;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 6.1000e- 004 0.0220 5.9900e- 003 6.0000e- 005 1.4400e- 003 7.0000e- 005 1.5100e- 003 3.9000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 6.3802 6.3802 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 6.3970 Vendor 1.6000e- 004 5.7200e- 003 1.6000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.4480 1.4480 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.4509 Worker 4.8000e- 004 3.2000e- 004 3.7300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4400e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.1924 1.1924 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1930 Total 1.2500e- 003 0.0281 0.0113 8.0000e- 005 3.2500e- 003 9.0000e- 005 3.3400e- 003 8.8000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 9.7000e- 004 0.0000 9.0205 9.0205 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 9.0409 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 8.1600e- 003 0.0000 8.1600e- 003 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0199 0.1970 0.1449 2.4000e- 004 0.0104 0.0104 9.7100e- 003 9.7100e- 003 0.0000 21.0713 21.0713 5.3900e- 003 0.0000 21.2060 Total 0.0199 0.1970 0.1449 2.4000e- 004 8.1600e- 003 0.0104 0.0186 1.2400e- 003 9.7100e- 003 0.0110 0.0000 21.0713 21.0713 5.3900e- 003 0.0000 21.2060 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 10 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ .,. __ ·-·-·1'··---· ... -- .... I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -------4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 6.1000e- 004 0.0220 5.9900e- 003 6.0000e- 005 1.4400e- 003 7.0000e- 005 1.5100e- 003 3.9000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 6.3802 6.3802 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 6.3970 Vendor 1.6000e- 004 5.7200e- 003 1.6000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.4480 1.4480 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.4509 Worker 4.8000e- 004 3.2000e- 004 3.7300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4400e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.1924 1.1924 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1930 Total 1.2500e- 003 0.0281 0.0113 8.0000e- 005 3.2500e- 003 9.0000e- 005 3.3400e- 003 8.8000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 9.7000e- 004 0.0000 9.0205 9.0205 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 9.0409 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0655 0.0000 0.0655 0.0337 0.0000 0.0337 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0183 0.2021 0.0976 2.1000e- 004 9.1600e- 003 9.1600e- 003 8.4200e- 003 8.4200e- 003 0.0000 18.1039 18.1039 5.8600e- 003 0.0000 18.2503 Total 0.0183 0.2021 0.0976 2.1000e- 004 0.0655 9.1600e- 003 0.0747 0.0337 8.4200e- 003 0.0421 0.0000 18.1039 18.1039 5.8600e- 003 0.0000 18.2503 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 11 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ .,. __ ·-·-·1'··---· ... -- .... I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -------4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.6000e- 004 5.7200e- 003 1.6000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.4480 1.4480 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.4509 Worker 3.7000e- 004 2.5000e- 004 2.8700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1100e- 003 2.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.9172 0.9172 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9177 Total 5.3000e- 004 5.9700e- 003 4.4700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.4800e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.5000e- 003 4.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 4.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.3652 2.3652 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.3686 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0295 0.0000 0.0295 0.0152 0.0000 0.0152 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0183 0.2021 0.0976 2.1000e- 004 9.1600e- 003 9.1600e- 003 8.4200e- 003 8.4200e- 003 0.0000 18.1039 18.1039 5.8600e- 003 0.0000 18.2502 Total 0.0183 0.2021 0.0976 2.1000e- 004 0.0295 9.1600e- 003 0.0387 0.0152 8.4200e- 003 0.0236 0.0000 18.1039 18.1039 5.8600e- 003 0.0000 18.2502 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 12 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ .,. __ ·-·-·1'··---· ... -- .... I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -------4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.3 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.6000e- 004 5.7200e- 003 1.6000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.4480 1.4480 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.4509 Worker 3.7000e- 004 2.5000e- 004 2.8700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1100e- 003 2.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.9172 0.9172 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9177 Total 5.3000e- 004 5.9700e- 003 4.4700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.4800e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.5000e- 003 4.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 4.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.3652 2.3652 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.3686 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2260 1.7710 1.6092 2.7600e- 003 0.0903 0.0903 0.0865 0.0865 0.0000 229.4519 229.4519 0.0451 0.0000 230.5804 Total 0.2260 1.7710 1.6092 2.7600e- 003 0.0903 0.0903 0.0865 0.0865 0.0000 229.4519 229.4519 0.0451 0.0000 230.5804 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 13 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - ----t----t---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� - .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ...,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�-------�---4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I - - 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1• •• ·liiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill - - 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.3100e- 003 0.1158 0.0325 3.0000e- 004 7.6500e- 003 2.4000e- 004 7.8900e- 003 2.2100e- 003 2.3000e- 004 2.4400e- 003 0.0000 29.3335 29.3335 2.3700e- 003 0.0000 29.3928 Worker 9.7200e- 003 6.5300e- 003 0.0762 2.7000e- 004 0.0291 1.9000e- 004 0.0293 7.7300e- 003 1.8000e- 004 7.9100e- 003 0.0000 24.3239 24.3239 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 24.3369 Total 0.0130 0.1223 0.1087 5.7000e- 004 0.0368 4.3000e- 004 0.0372 9.9400e- 003 4.1000e- 004 0.0104 0.0000 53.6574 53.6574 2.8900e- 003 0.0000 53.7297 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2260 1.7710 1.6092 2.7600e- 003 0.0903 0.0903 0.0865 0.0865 0.0000 229.4516 229.4516 0.0451 0.0000 230.5801 Total 0.2260 1.7710 1.6092 2.7600e- 003 0.0903 0.0903 0.0865 0.0865 0.0000 229.4516 229.4516 0.0451 0.0000 230.5801 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 14 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - ----t----t---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� - .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ...,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�-------�---4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I - - 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1• •• ·liiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill - - 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.3100e- 003 0.1158 0.0325 3.0000e- 004 7.6500e- 003 2.4000e- 004 7.8900e- 003 2.2100e- 003 2.3000e- 004 2.4400e- 003 0.0000 29.3335 29.3335 2.3700e- 003 0.0000 29.3928 Worker 9.7200e- 003 6.5300e- 003 0.0762 2.7000e- 004 0.0291 1.9000e- 004 0.0293 7.7300e- 003 1.8000e- 004 7.9100e- 003 0.0000 24.3239 24.3239 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 24.3369 Total 0.0130 0.1223 0.1087 5.7000e- 004 0.0368 4.3000e- 004 0.0372 9.9400e- 003 4.1000e- 004 0.0104 0.0000 53.6574 53.6574 2.8900e- 003 0.0000 53.7297 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0640 0.5038 0.4952 8.6000e- 004 0.0242 0.0242 0.0232 0.0232 0.0000 71.6496 71.6496 0.0138 0.0000 71.9952 Total 0.0640 0.5038 0.4952 8.6000e- 004 0.0242 0.0242 0.0232 0.0232 0.0000 71.6496 71.6496 0.0138 0.0000 71.9952 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 15 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - ----t----t---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� - .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ...,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�-------�---4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I - - 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1• •• ·liiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill - - 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 9.7000e- 004 0.0342 9.7800e- 003 9.0000e- 005 2.3900e- 003 7.0000e- 005 2.4500e- 003 6.9000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 0.0000 9.0681 9.0681 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 9.0861 Worker 2.8700e- 003 1.8500e- 003 0.0222 8.0000e- 005 9.0900e- 003 6.0000e- 005 9.1500e- 003 2.4100e- 003 5.0000e- 005 2.4700e- 003 0.0000 7.3132 7.3132 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 7.3169 Total 3.8400e- 003 0.0360 0.0320 1.7000e- 004 0.0115 1.3000e- 004 0.0116 3.1000e- 003 1.1000e- 004 3.2200e- 003 0.0000 16.3813 16.3813 8.7000e- 004 0.0000 16.4029 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0640 0.5038 0.4952 8.6000e- 004 0.0242 0.0242 0.0232 0.0232 0.0000 71.6496 71.6496 0.0138 0.0000 71.9951 Total 0.0640 0.5038 0.4952 8.6000e- 004 0.0242 0.0242 0.0232 0.0232 0.0000 71.6496 71.6496 0.0138 0.0000 71.9951 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 16 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - ----t----t---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� - .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ...,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�-------�---4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... ��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I - - 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1• •• ·liiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill - - 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 9.7000e- 004 0.0342 9.7800e- 003 9.0000e- 005 2.3900e- 003 7.0000e- 005 2.4500e- 003 6.9000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 0.0000 9.0681 9.0681 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 9.0861 Worker 2.8700e- 003 1.8500e- 003 0.0222 8.0000e- 005 9.0900e- 003 6.0000e- 005 9.1500e- 003 2.4100e- 003 5.0000e- 005 2.4700e- 003 0.0000 7.3132 7.3132 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 7.3169 Total 3.8400e- 003 0.0360 0.0320 1.7000e- 004 0.0115 1.3000e- 004 0.0116 3.1000e- 003 1.1000e- 004 3.2200e- 003 0.0000 16.3813 16.3813 8.7000e- 004 0.0000 16.4029 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0141 0.1400 0.1755 2.7000e- 004 7.3200e- 003 7.3200e- 003 6.7500e- 003 6.7500e- 003 0.0000 23.2651 23.2651 7.3700e- 003 0.0000 23.4494 Paving 2.2800e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0164 0.1400 0.1755 2.7000e- 004 7.3200e- 003 7.3200e- 003 6.7500e- 003 6.7500e- 003 0.0000 23.2651 23.2651 7.3700e- 003 0.0000 23.4494 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 17 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ .,. __ ·-·-·1'··---· ... -- .... I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ .,. .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -------4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.8000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 6.0300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.4700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.4900e- 003 6.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.9873 1.9873 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.9883 Total 7.8000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 6.0300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.4700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.4900e- 003 6.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.9873 1.9873 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.9883 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0141 0.1400 0.1755 2.7000e- 004 7.3200e- 003 7.3200e- 003 6.7500e- 003 6.7500e- 003 0.0000 23.2650 23.2650 7.3700e- 003 0.0000 23.4494 Paving 2.2800e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0164 0.1400 0.1755 2.7000e- 004 7.3200e- 003 7.3200e- 003 6.7500e- 003 6.7500e- 003 0.0000 23.2650 23.2650 7.3700e- 003 0.0000 23.4494 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 18 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. __ ..,. I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... ------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... ------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -----4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.5 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.8000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 6.0300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.4700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.4900e- 003 6.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.9873 1.9873 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.9883 Total 7.8000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 6.0300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.4700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.4900e- 003 6.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.9873 1.9873 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.9883 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.1515 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.0700e- 003 0.0211 0.0272 4.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 1.2300e- 003 1.2300e- 003 1.2300e- 003 0.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.8361 Total 0.1546 0.0211 0.0272 4.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 1.2300e- 003 1.2300e- 003 1.2300e- 003 0.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.8361 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 19 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. __ ..,. I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... ------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... ------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -----4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.6000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 2.0100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.3000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.6624 0.6624 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6628 Total 2.6000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 2.0100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.3000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.6624 0.6624 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6628 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.1515 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.0700e- 003 0.0211 0.0272 4.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 1.2300e- 003 1.2300e- 003 1.2300e- 003 0.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.8361 Total 0.1546 0.0211 0.0272 4.0000e- 005 1.2300e- 003 1.2300e- 003 1.2300e- 003 1.2300e- 003 0.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.8361 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 20 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� - - - - -t- - - ----- 1 I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I - - - -� - - - ----- - - - - .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. __ ..,. I I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I I ----r-------- 1 I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�--------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... ------� I I I I I I ----�------------� I I I I I I ----�---- .... ------� I I I I I I 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..,_ __ .,;;; .b;;; ·llii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -----4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Increase Transit Accessibility Improve Pedestrian Network 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.6000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 2.0100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.3000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.6624 0.6624 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6628 Total 2.6000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 2.0100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.3000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.6624 0.6624 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6628 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 21 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - ----t----t---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� .... __ ,.. __ ..., .,. .,. .,. __ ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ...... -----4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1---------� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I - - ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.2083 0.6345 1.0240 1.3800e- 003 0.0604 1.8100e- 003 0.0622 0.0162 1.6800e- 003 0.0179 0.0000 128.1390 128.1390 0.0124 0.0000 128.4495 Unmitigated 0.2101 0.6458 1.0713 1.5900e- 003 0.0814 1.9600e- 003 0.0833 0.0218 1.8200e- 003 0.0236 0.0000 148.1528 148.1528 0.0132 0.0000 148.4815 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Government Office Building 1,925.21 0.00 0.00 212,987 158,102 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 6.35 6.35 6.35 1,516 1,125 Total 1,931.57 6.35 6.35 214,502 159,227 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Government Office Building 0.70 0.70 0.70 33.00 62.00 5.00 50 34 16 Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.70 0.70 0.70 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 22 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual ----�---- • I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----L---- ..,. __ ..,. __ .,. __ ·-·-·· .... I I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1• ii ii.� ii ii ii ii I ...... - ,_ ........ - .... ·�. ·�. ·�. ·- - --+-+-+-· - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _.L_.L_.L_ ...... - ....... :··:··:·· - ............ • • II • • II • • II • • ___ .,..._,.••II•• II•• II•• --"---"---L • • I I I - ·--t---t---t- - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ........... -···�··�··�·· --1---1---1--- I I I I I - --1---1---1--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---·-···�--�··!·· 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 119.7621 119.7621 4.9400e- 003 1.0200e- 003 120.1906 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 133.1530 133.1530 5.5000e- 003 1.1400e- 003 133.6294 NaturalGas Mitigated 1.4600e- 003 0.0132 0.0111 8.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 14.4140 14.4140 2.8000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 14.4997 NaturalGas Unmitigated 1.4600e- 003 0.0132 0.0111 8.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 14.4140 14.4140 2.8000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 14.4997 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Install High Efficiency Lighting Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Government Office Building 0.561378 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826 0.015545 0.005795 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747 0.001542 0.004926 0.000594 0.000934 Parking Lot 0.561378 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826 0.015545 0.005795 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747 0.001542 0.004926 0.000594 0.000934 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.561378 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826 0.015545 0.005795 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747 0.001542 0.004926 0.000594 0.000934 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 23 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - - - -t - - - -t - - - -t - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - - _L - - - _L - - - -L - - - - - - - .... __ ,.. __ .,. ·-·'fl··--·-·t-··-·-·-· .... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----� - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1 ii ii ii .b ii; ii .b ii ii ii.� ii ii ii ii I I I ............. ------t------t - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --+---� - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. -� .. -� ... 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Government Office Building 255253 1.3800e- 003 0.0125 0.0105 8.0000e- 005 9.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 0.0000 13.6213 13.6213 2.6000e- 004 2.5000e- 004 13.7022 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 14855.4 8.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7927 0.7927 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.7975 Total 1.4600e- 003 0.0132 0.0111 8.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 14.4140 14.4140 2.8000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 14.4997 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Government Office Building 255253 1.3800e- 003 0.0125 0.0105 8.0000e- 005 9.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 0.0000 13.6213 13.6213 2.6000e- 004 2.5000e- 004 13.7022 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 14855.4 8.0000e- 005 7.3000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7927 0.7927 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.7975 Total 1.4600e- 003 0.0132 0.0111 8.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 14.4140 14.4140 2.8000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 14.4997 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 24 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - - ----t----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----+-----� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I - - - _l _ - - -L - - - - ---- - - ----t----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----+-----� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I - - - _l - - - -L - - - - ---- - - - - ----·-- ... -·-·-·-- .. ---·-·-·· ...... ---i I I I I I I I I - - - -� - - - -r----+------1 I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----+-----� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil- ..;..;..;..; t .. .;.;..; k ; ; ; ; ;liiiiiiiiiii� I I I I I I I I 1---•---+- - - -L - - - _!, - - - - +----t ----·-- ... -·----··fl··-·-·--· ...... ---i I I I I I I I I - - - -� - - - -r----+------1 I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----+-----� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil- __ ..... ..;.;..; t .. ..;..;..; k ; ; ; ; ;liiiiiiiiiii� I I I I I I I I 1---•---+- - - -L - - - _!, _ - - - +----t 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Government Office Building 390699 124.4850 5.1400e- 003 1.0600e- 003 124.9303 Parking Lot 3640 1.1598 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.1639 Parking Lot 7840 2.4980 1.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 2.5069 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 15724.8 5.0103 2.1000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 5.0282 Total 133.1530 5.5000e- 003 1.1300e- 003 133.6294 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 25 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual ----t----t----�-------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - - -� - - - -� - - - -1--------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - - -� - - - -� - - - -1--------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I .._ __ _. t L k •••• *---iiiiiiil I I I I I I I I I I .... --+---+- - - -L - - - -L - - - _!, - - - - +------1 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Government Office Building 354338 112.8996 4.6600e- 003 9.6000e- 004 113.3035 Parking Lot 2548 0.8119 3.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.8148 Parking Lot 5488 1.7486 7.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.7549 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 13502.2 4.3021 1.8000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 4.3175 Total 119.7621 4.9400e- 003 1.0200e- 003 120.1906 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 26 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual ----t----t----�-------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - - -� - - - -� - - - -1--------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - - -� - - - -� - - - -1--------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I .._ __ _. t L k •••• *---iiiiiiil I I I I I I I I I I .... --+---+- - - -L - - - -L - - - _!, - - - - +------1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.1320 1.0000e- 005 1.4500e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.8200e- 003 2.8200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0100e- 003 Unmitigated 0.1320 1.0000e- 005 1.4500e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.8200e- 003 2.8200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0100e- 003 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0152 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1167 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.4500e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.8200e- 003 2.8200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0100e- 003 Total 0.1320 1.0000e- 005 1.4500e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.8200e- 003 2.8200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0100e- 003 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 27 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual ----�---- • I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----L---- ' - - - ----�----�----1-��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1-��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1-��� - - - - 1---·-- ... -·--·-·1"-·-·--1"--·-·-· .... -- ... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------�-- • I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1-��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1-��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----1-��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r----1-��� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�------��� I I I I I I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil---""";;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I .... --•---+--·-·-·· .... I I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I m;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----f ii ii ii.� ii ii ii ii Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Install Low Flow Toilet Install Low Flow Shower Use Water Efficient Irrigation System 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0152 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1167 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.4500e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.8200e- 003 2.8200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0100e- 003 Total 0.1320 1.0000e- 005 1.4500e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.8200e- 003 2.8200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0100e- 003 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 28 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - - - ----t----t---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� - - - - .... --•---+-·---·1'··-·-·-1'--·-·-· .... ---t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�----------- I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- .... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r----r---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I ----�----�---- ..... --------� I I I I I I I I I I I I m;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1;;; .b;;; .b;;; ·lii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 34.2510 0.1688 4.2300e- 003 39.7314 Unmitigated 40.7221 0.2109 5.2700e- 003 47.5652 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Government Office Building 5.54857 / 3.40073 36.8182 0.1823 4.5700e- 003 42.7358 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.874125 / 0 3.9039 0.0286 7.0000e- 004 4.8293 Total 40.7221 0.2109 5.2700e- 003 47.5652 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 29 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual ----�---- • I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I l-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill ii ii ii ii� ii ii ii ii ----�----�----+-----� I I I I I I I ----�----�----------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----+-----� I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill••• .......... L ........... k •••• il-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I I I I I I I I 1---+---+ · • • .L • • • .!. • • • • +------1 - - - 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Institute Recycling and Composting Services 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Government Office Building 4.43885 / 3.19329 31.1279 0.1459 3.6700e- 003 35.8680 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.6993 / 0 3.1231 0.0229 5.6000e- 004 3.8635 Total 34.2510 0.1688 4.2300e- 003 39.7314 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 30 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual ----�----r----+-------� I I I I I I I ----�----�------------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----+-------� I I I I I I I l;.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;;ll•••.;..;.;..;L..;.;..;..;k;;;; iliii--� I I I I I I I I .... --+---+- - - -L - - - _!, _ - - - +----t - - Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 2.9962 0.1771 0.0000 7.4228 Unmitigated 5.9923 0.3541 0.0000 14.8457 Category/Year 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Government Office Building 25.97 5.2717 0.3116 0.0000 13.0604 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 3.55 0.7206 0.0426 0.0000 1.7853 Total 5.9923 0.3541 0.0000 14.8457 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 31 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual ----�---- • I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I ----� - - - - I I I I I I l-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill ii ii ii ii� ii ii ii ii ----�----�----+-----� I I I I I I I ----�----r----------� I I I I I I I ----�----r----+-----� I I I I I I I liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill••• .......... L ........... k •••• il-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil I I I I I I I I 1---+---+ · • • .L • • • .!. • • • • +------1 - - - 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Government Office Building 12.985 2.6358 0.1558 0.0000 6.5302 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 1.775 0.3603 0.0213 0.0000 0.8927 Total 2.9962 0.1771 0.0000 7.4228 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Emergency Generator 1 0.5 26 190 0.73 Diesel Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 32 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual ----�----r----+-------� I I I I I I I ----�----�------------� I I I I I I I ----�----�----+-------� I I I I I I I l;.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;;ll•••.;..;.;..;L..;.;..;..;k;;;; iliii--� I I I I I I I I .... --+---+- - - -L - - - _!, _ - - - +----t ...... -- ...... -- ...... -- ...... -- ---�··· - - 11.0 Vegetation Equipment Type Number 10.1 Stationary Sources ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Equipment Type tons/yr MT/yr Emergency Generator - Diesel (175 - 300 HP) 4.0500e- 003 0.0113 0.0103 2.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.8811 1.8811 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.8877 Total 4.0500e- 003 0.0113 0.0103 2.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.8811 1.8811 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.8877 Unmitigated/Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/4/2020 8:35 AMPage 33 of 33 Orange Fire Staiton No. 1 and Headquarters - Orange County, Annual - - - 1-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil----1 •••••• liiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED FIRE STATION 1 (SP-4071), 105 SOUTH WATER STREET, CITY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: WLC ARCHITECTS, INC. 8163 Rochester Avenue, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Project No. 12482.001 September 26, 2019 Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY September 26, 2019 Project No. 12482.001 To: WLC Architects, Inc. 8163 Rochester Avenue, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Mr. Kelley Needham Subject: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Fire Station 1 (SP-4071), 105 South Water Street, City of Orange, California In accordance with our proposal dated March 22, 2019 and your authorization on July 28, 2019, Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Leighton) has conducted a geotechnical investigation for the proposed Fire Station 1 facility (SP-4071), located at 105 South Water Street in the City of Orange, California. The purpose of this study has been to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site with respect to the proposed fire station development and to provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction. Based on this investigation, the proposed development of the fire station is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Significant geotechnical issues for this project are those related to the potential for strong seismic shaking and potentially compressible soils. Good planning and design of the project can limit the impact of these constraints. This report presents our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations for the project. Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY 10532 Acacia Street, Suite 8-6 • Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-5455 909.484.2205 • 909.484.2170 Fax Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 2 - We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. Jason D. Hertzberg, GE 2711 Principal Engineer Joe Roe PG, CEG 2456 Principal Geologist MM/LP/JDH/JR/rsm Distribution: (1) Addressee Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Site Location and Description ..................................................................... 1 1.2 Proposed Improvements ............................................................................ 2 1.3 Purpose of Exploration ............................................................................... 2 1.4 Scope of Investigation ................................................................................ 2 2.0 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Geologic Hazards Review .......................................................................... 4 2.1.1 Site History ...................................................................................... 4 2.2 Regional Geologic Conditions .................................................................... 4 2.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions ........................................................................ 5 2.3.1 Compressible and Collapsible Soil .................................................. 6 2.3.2 Expansive Soils ............................................................................... 6 2.3.3 Sulfate Content ............................................................................... 7 2.3.4 Resistivity, Chloride and pH ............................................................ 7 2.4 Groundwater .............................................................................................. 7 2.5 Faulting and Seismicity .............................................................................. 8 2.5.1 Surface Faulting .............................................................................. 8 2.5.2 Seismic Design Parameters ............................................................ 9 2.5.3 Seismic Parameters for Geotechnical Evaluation ......................... 10 2.5.4 Historical Seismicity` ..................................................................... 10 2.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards .................................................................... 11 2.6.1 Liquefaction Potential .................................................................... 11 2.6.2 Seismically Induced Settlement .................................................... 12 2.6.3 Seiches and Tsunamis .................................................................. 12 2.7 Slope Stability and Landslides ................................................................. 12 2.8 Flooding and Dam Inundation Potential ................................................... 13 2.9 Infiltration Testing ..................................................................................... 13 2.10 Other Potential Hazards Listed on CGS Note 48 ..................................... 14 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 15 3.1 General Earthwork and Grading ............................................................... 15 3.1.1 Site Preparation ............................................................................ 15 3.1.2 Overexcavation and Recompaction .............................................. 15 3.1.3 Fill Placement and Compaction.... 17Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.1.4 Import Fill Soil ............................................................................... 17 3.1.5 Shrinkage and Subsidence ........................................................... 17 3.2 Foundation Recommendations ................................................................ 18 3.2.1 Minimum Embedment and Width .................................................. 18 3.2.2 Allowable Bearing ......................................................................... 19 3.2.3 Lateral Load Resistance ............................................................... 19 3.2.4 Increase in Bearing and Friction – Short Duration Loads .............. 19 Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - ii - 3.2.5 Settlement Estimates .................................................................... 19 3.3 Recommendations for Slabs-On-Grade ................................................... 20 3.4 Seismic Design Parameters ..................................................................... 22 3.5 Lateral Earth Pressures ............................................................................ 22 3.6 Cement Type and Corrosion Protection ................................................... 23 3.7 Pavement Design ..................................................................................... 24 3.8 Infiltration Recommendations ................................................................... 25 3.9 Temporary Excavations ............................................................................ 28 3.10 Trench Backfill .......................................................................................... 29 3.11 Surface Drainage ..................................................................................... 29 3.12 Additional Geotechnical Services ............................................................. 30 Attachments and Figures (Rear of Text) Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Geotechnical Exploration Map Figure 2A - Geotechnical Cross Sections AA and BB Figure 3 - Regional Geology Map Figure 4 - Regional Fault and Historical Seismicity Map Figure 5 - Seismic Hazard Map Figure 6 - Dam Inundation Map Figure 7 - Flood Hazard Map Figure 8 - Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail GBA “Important Information about This Geotechnical Engineering Report” Appendices Appendix A - References Appendix B - Exploration Logs Appendix C - Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results Appendix D - Summary of Seismic Hazard Analysis Appendix E - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 1 - 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Site Location and Description The site contains two (2) parcels located at the southeast corner of Chapman Avenue and South Water Street and at the northwest corner of Almond Avenue and South Water Street, in Orange, California. The site previously contained several buildings and appears to have been vacant since early 2010. Concrete slabs were observed in the northern and western regions with asphalt paved areas located throughout the northern parcel. The site is surrounded by office buildings and single-family residential homes to the north, east and west. The City of Orange Water Division Department of Public Works is located to the south. The parcel located northwest of South Water Street and Almond Avenue is currently occupied by a car dealership lot. The site and surroundings are relatively flat, with site elevations ranging from about 214 to 219 feet above mean sea level, with drainage to the south. The site location (latitude 33.7873°, longitude -117.8411°) and immediate vicinity are shown on Figure 1, Site Location Map. 1.2 Proposed Improvements Based on our review of the proposed site plan Fire Station 1 Headquarters City of Orange Fire Department 105 South Water Street, Orange, CA, prepared by WLC Architects dated July 30, 2019, the proposed fire station development includes a headquarters/administration building on the western portion and a separate reserve apparatus building on the southeast portion of the site. We understand that the site will be designed in stages such that the City has the option to construct an operational Fire Station 1 first and the Fire Headquarters building portion added at a later date. The proposed fire station facility is composed of a two-story, approximate 24,300-square-foot building, of which approximately 5,700 square feet make up the main apparatus building portion. Additional overflow parking will be constructed on the existing site located northwest of the intersection of Almond Avenue and South Water Street. We assume that remedial cuts and fills of 5 feet or less with localized deeper excavations to remove undocumented fill will be required to attain finish grades for the new structures. Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 2 - 1.3 Purpose of Exploration The purpose of this study has been to evaluate the general geotechnical conditions at the site with respect to the proposed improvements and to provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction. Our geotechnical exploration included hollow-stem auger soil borings, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis to evaluate existing conditions and develop the recommendations contained in this report. Infiltration testing was conducted to evaluate general infiltration characteristics at the locations and depths tested to support infiltration system design by the civil engineer. 1.4 Scope of Investigation The scope of our study has included the following tasks: • Geologic Hazards Review: We reviewed pertinent, readily available geologic and geotechnical literature covering the site. Our review included regional geologic maps and reports available from our in-house library. Key documents reviewed are referenced in Appendix A, References. • Utility Coordination: We contacted Underground Service Alert (USA) prior to our subsurface exploration to have underground utilities located and marked. • Field Exploration: Our field investigation included drilling, logging, and sampling of five (5) hollow-stem auger borings (LB-1 through LB-5) at representative locations in the areas of the proposed building to depths ranging from approximately 6 feet to 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). Additionally, two hollow-stem auger borings (LB-6 and LB-7) were drilled, logged, and sampled in the area of the proposed overflow parking lot to depths of approximately 9 feet bgs. Encountered earth materials were logged in the field by our representative and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2488). Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained at selected intervals within these borings using a California Ring Sampler. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were conducted at selected depths and samples were obtained from the SPT split-spoon sampler. Representative bulk samples were also collected at shallow depths from the borings. Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 3 - Two infiltration tests were conducted within borings LB-4 and LB-5 to evaluate general infiltration rates of the subsurface soils with bottom depths of 14 feet bgs and 20.5 feet bgs. All excavations were backfilled with the soil cuttings. An asphalt concrete patch was placed at the top of LB-6 and LB-7 to match the existing ground surface. Logs of the geotechnical borings are presented in Appendix B, Exploration Logs. Approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 2, Exploration Location Map. • Geotechnical Laboratory Testing: Geotechnical laboratory tests were conducted on selected relatively undisturbed and bulk soil samples obtained during our field investigation. This testing program was designed to evaluate engineering characteristics of the onsite soils. Laboratory tests conducted during this investigation include: - In situ moisture content and dry density - Proctor Compaction Test - Sieve analysis - Atterberg Limits - Expansion Index - Water-soluble sulfate concentration in the soil - Resistivity, chloride content and pH The in situ moisture content and dry density test results are shown on the boring logs in Appendix B. The other laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C, Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results. • Engineering Analysis: Data obtained from our background review, field exploration and geotechnical laboratory testing was evaluated and analyzed to develop geotechnical conclusions and provide recommendations presented in this report. • Report Preparation: Results of our geotechnical investigation have been summarized in this report, presenting our findings, conclusions and geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed Fire Station development as currently planned. Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 4 - 2.0 FINDINGS 2.1 Geologic Hazards Review We have reviewed pertinent, readily available geologic and geotechnical literature covering the site. Our review included regional geologic maps and reports available from our library. Documents reviewed are listed in Appendix A, References. Potential geologic hazards are discussed in the following sections. Our review has considered California Geological Survey’s Note 48, Checklist of the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings. 2.1.1 Site History Our review of site history included analysis of historical topographic maps between the dates of 1896 and 2015 and historical aerial photographs between the dates of 1946 and 2016. The purpose of this evaluation was to help understand the origin of the current site profile, former site use, as well as past grading activities. In its original undeveloped state, up until early 1930, the properties consisted of gently southerly sloping terrain, with the Santiago Creek drainage channel situated approximately 0.20 mile to the east. Between approximately 1940 and 1963, both properties were utilized for agricultural purposes with the western area of proposed parking overflow as orchard and the proposed fire station site as buildings likely associated with the agriculture activities. While the overall use of the buildings and foundation elements are unknown, structures onsite were not observed in 2010 aerial imagery. It is unknown if all foundation elements were removed and should be anticipated in the subsurface during grading of the site. 2.2 Regional Geologic Conditions The project site is located in the western part of the Tustin Plain within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province west of Santiago Creek drainage. The Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province extends 900 miles southward from the Los Angeles Basin to the tip of Baja California (Yerkes et al., 1965) and is Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 5 - characterized by elongate northwest-trending mountain ranges separated by sediment-floored valleys. The most dominant structural features of the province are the northwest-trending fault zones, most of which die out, merge with, or are terminated by the steep reverse faults at the southern margin of the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province. East of the site are the northwest-trending Santa Ana Mountains, a large range which has been uplifted on its eastern side along the Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone, producing a tilted, irregular highland that slopes westward toward the sea. Sediments eroded from the Santa Ana Mountains have been transported by Santiago Creek and the lower reach of the Santa Ana River to build a large, broad alluvial fan known as the Tustin Plain. The Tustin Plain is comprised of relatively flat-lying, unconsolidated to semi-consolidated clastic sediments that are approximately 1,000 to 1,100 feet thick (Singer, 1973; Sprotte et al., 1980a and 1980b). Beneath the site, the near surface, unconsolidated, relatively fine- grained sediments are Holocene age (less than 11,000 years old) and consist of predominately youthful alluvial fan deposits (Sprotte et al., 1980a and 1980b). These sediments in turn are underlain at depth by sedimentary bedrock of Tertiary age. The surficial geologic units mapped in the vicinity of the site are shown on Figure 3, Regional Geology Map. 2.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions Based upon our review of pertinent geotechnical literature and our subsurface exploration, the site is underlain by undocumented fill (Map Symbol: Afu) in the upper five to seven feet, localized deeper fill to seven feet below grade was interpreted in boring LB-5 due to the presence of fresh, mechanically fractured black slaty gravels and cobble size rock fragments. Review of historic aerial imagery indicates former structures were onsite until circa 2010. Foundation elements should be anticipated in the subsurface during grading of the site. Refusal at shallow depth in boring LB-2 was encountered which is within the footprint of a historical structure formerly located onsite (NETR, 2019). The artificial fill is underlain by Quaternary-age old alluvial fan deposits (Map Symbol: Qof) extending to the maximum exploration depth of 51 feet bgs. The overlying undocumented fill (Afu) encountered within our excavations generally consisted of a loose to dense silty sand and sand with gravel and small mechanically fractured cobbles. The native soils (Qof) were generally composed of slightly Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 6 - moist to moist, dense to very dense, well-graded gravel with sand and silt, sand with gravel, and silty sand with small weathered cobbles derived from the sedimentary formations in the Santa Ana Mountains. The in-situ moisture content within the upper approximately 15 feet generally ranged from 2 to 7 percent. More detailed descriptions of the subsurface soil are presented on the boring logs in Appendix B. 2.3.1 Compressible and Collapsible Soil Soil compressibility refers to a soil’s potential for settlement when subjected to increased loads as from a fill surcharge or a new structure. Based on our observations and the laboratory test results, the native soil encountered is generally considered slightly compressible. Removal and recompaction of this material under shallow foundations is recommended to reduce the potential for adverse total and differential settlement of the proposed improvements. Collapse potential (moisture sensitivity, sometimes referred to as ‘hydrocollapse’) refers to the potential settlement of a soil under existing stresses upon being wetted. Based upon the dense nature of encountered sands and gravel, the hydrocollapse potential of the onsite soil is expected to be very low. 2.3.2 Expansive Soils Expansive soils contain significant amounts of clay particles that swell considerably when wetted and shrink when dried. Foundations constructed on these soils are subjected to large uplifting forces caused by the swelling. Without proper measures taken, heaving and cracking of building foundations and slabs-on-grade could result. A near-surface soil sample from the proposed fire station building area was tested for expansion index. The results of the tests indicated soil with very low expansion potential. Based on these test results, the near surface soil is expected to have a very low expansion potential. The results of the expansion testing are included in Appendix C of this report Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 7 - 2.3.3 Sulfate Content Water-soluble sulfates in soil can react adversely with concrete. However, concrete in contact with soil containing sulfate concentrations of less than 0.1 percent by weight is considered to have negligible sulfate exposure based on the American Concrete Institute (ACI) provisions, adopted by the 2016 CBC (CBC, 2016, Chapter 19; and ACI, 2008). A near-surface soil sample was tested for soluble sulfate content. The result of this test indicated a sulfate content of less than 0.02 percent by weight, indicating negligible sulfate exposure. As such, the soils exposed at pad grade are not expected to pose a significant potential for sulfate reaction with concrete. The results of the chemical analyses are included in Appendix C of this report 2.3.4 Resistivity, Chloride and pH Soil corrosivity to ferrous metals can be estimated by the soil’s electrical resistivity, chloride content and pH. In general, soil having a minimum resistivity between 1,000 and 2,000 ohm-cm is considered corrosive, and soil having a minimum resistivity less than 1,000 ohm-cm is considered severely corrosive. Soil with a chloride content of 500 parts-per-million (ppm) or more is considered corrosive to ferrous metals. As a screening for potentially corrosive soil, a soil sample was tested during this investigation to determine its minimum resistivity, chloride content, and pH. These tests indicated a minimum resistivity of 1,570 ohm-cm, chloride content of 187 ppm, and pH of 7.1. Based on these results, the onsite soil is considered corrosive to ferrous metals. The results of the chemical analyses are included in Appendix C of this report. 2.4 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in our borings excavated to a maximum depth of 51 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). The historical high groundwater level in the area was estimated to have been on the order of 172 feet bgs in State Well 04S09W33M001S, located 0.6 miles southeast of the site (CDWR, 2019). The California Geological Survey (1997) Seismic Hazard Zone Report for this region shows the site area as not having historically shallow Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 8 - groundwater levels (greater than 40 feet bgs). Based on this, groundwater has historically been deep, and shallow groundwater is not expected at the site. Fluctuations of the groundwater level and localized zones of perched water should be anticipated below grade during and following the rainy season. Irrigation of landscaped areas and infiltration of groundwater can also cause a fluctuation of local groundwater levels and may create temporary zones of perched water. 2.5 Faulting and Seismicity In general, the primary seismic hazards for sites in the region include surface rupture along active faults and strong ground shaking. The potential for fault rupture and seismic shaking are discussed below. 2.5.1 Surface Faulting One of the primary seismic hazards for this region is surface fault rupture. Our assessment of the possible presence of active faulting through the proposed improvement project site included a review of available literature, maps, and aerial photographs. Our review of available in-house literature indicates that there are no known active faults traversing the site and the site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the potential risk for surface fault rupture through the site is considered low. The closest known active or potentially active faults are the Elysian Park Blind Thrust and the Puente Hills Blind Thrust fault systems located approximately 9 miles northwest of the project site. The known regional active and potentially active faults that could produce the most significant ground shaking at the site include the Whittier-Elsinore, San Andreas, Sierra Madre, San Jacinto, Newport-Inglewood, Raymond, Puente Hills, Verdugo-Eagle Rock, Elysian Park and Norwalk faults. Active faults within a 60-mile radius from the site are listed in Appendix D. Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 9 - 2.5.2 Seismic Design Parameters The principal seismic hazard to the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along any of several major active and potentially active faults in southern California, see Figure 4, Regional Fault and Historical Seismicity Map. The intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon the earthquake magnitude, the distance from the source, and the site response characteristics. Accordingly, design of the project should be performed in accordance with all applicable current codes and standards utilizing the appropriate seismic design parameters to reduce seismic risk as defined by California Geological Survey (CGS) Chapter 2 of Special Publication 117A (CGS, 2008). The 2016 edition of the California Building Code (CBC) is the current edition of the code. Through compliance with these regulatory requirements and the utilization of appropriate seismic design parameters selected by the design professionals, potential effects relating to seismic shaking can be reduced. A summary of the analysis is provided in Appendix D, Seismic Analysis. The following code-based seismic parameters should be considered for design under the 2016 CBC: Table 1 - 2016 CBC Seismic Design Parameters Description (2016 CBC reference) Parameter Design Value Site Latitude, degrees 33.7873 Site Longitude, degrees -117.8411 Site Class Definition (1613A.3.2) D Mapped MCE Spect Resp Accel at 0.2s for (Fig 1613.3.1(1)), using USGS SS 1.5 Mapped MCE Spect Resp Accel at 1.0s for (Fig 1613.3.1(2)) using USGS S1 0.549 Short Period Site Coefficient (Table 1613A.3.3(1)) Fa 1.0 Long Period Site Coefficient (Table 1613A.3.3(2)) Fv 1.5 Adjusted MCE Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period [=FaSS] (Eq. 16-37) SMS 1.5 Adjusted MCE Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period [=FvS1] (Eq. 16-38) SM1 0.823 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, 5% damped [=2/3SMS] (Eq. 16-39) SDS 1.0 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, 5% damped [=2/3SM1] (Eq 16-40) SD1 0.549 Is S1 greater than or equal to 0.75? No Seismic Design Category [=“D” if S1<0.75] (1613A.2.5) D Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 10 - 2.5.3 Seismic Parameters for Geotechnical Evaluation Based on ASCE 7-10 Equation 11.8-1, the FPGA is 1.0, the PGA is 0.515g, and the PGAM is 0.51g. This is the value used for seismic analysis of the onsite soils. As an added check, PGA and hazard deaggregation were also estimated using the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) 2008 Interactive Deaggregations utility. The results of this analysis indicate that the predominant modal earthquake has a PGA of 0.58g with magnitude of approximately 6.9 (MW) at a distance on the order of 12.8 kilometers for the Maximum Considered Earthquake (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years); 2/3 of this value is 0.39g. Results are included in Appendix D. This is not an exhaustive site-specific analysis, yet is useful in evaluating the general seismic potential at the site as an added check. 2.5.4 Historical Seismicity Figure 4, Regional Fault and Historical Seismicity Map shows recorded historical regional seismic events (those that have been recorded since the mid 1700s) with respect to the site. Based on this map, it appears that the site has been exposed to relatively significant seismic events; however, this site does not appear to have experienced more severe seismicity than compared to much of southern California in general. We are unaware of documentation indicating that past earthquake damage in the site vicinity has been significantly worse than for the majority of southern California. In addition, we are unaware of damage in the site vicinity as the result of liquefaction, lateral spreading, or other related phenomenon. We also performed an evaluation of site historical seismicity with respect to significant past earthquakes (those recorded from the 1800s with magnitudes 5 or greater) using the EQSEARCH computer program (Blake, 2011; see Appendix D). This is a relatively simple analysis, based on epicenters, and does not include more complex characteristics of earthquakes, such as rupture length and direction; however, it gives an idea of past seismicity at the site. This analysis suggests that the largest ground acceleration at the site generated from the magnitude 6.3Mw 1933 Long Beach Earthquake along the Newport Inglewood Fault is estimated to have been roughly 0.16g. Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 11 - 2.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards In general, secondary seismic hazards for sites in the region could include soil liquefaction, earthquake-induced settlement, lateral displacement, landsliding, and earthquake-induced flooding. The potential for secondary seismic hazards at the site is discussed below. 2.6.1 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is the loss of soil shear strength due to a buildup of pore- water pressure during severe and sustained ground shaking. Liquefaction is associated primarily with loose (low density), saturated, fine-to-medium grained, cohesionless soils. As the shaking action of an earthquake progresses, the soil grains are rearranged and the soil densifies within a short period of time. Rapid densification of the soil results in a buildup of pore-water pressure. When the pore-water pressure approaches the total overburden pressure, the soil shear strength reduces greatly and this soil temporarily behaves similarly to a fluid. Effects of liquefaction can include sand boils, settlement, and bearing capacity failures below structural foundations. As shown on the Seismic Hazard Zones map for the Orange Quadrangle (CGS, 1998), the project site is not located within an area that has been identified by the State of California as being potentially susceptible to liquefaction (Figure 5, Seismic Hazard Map). We have evaluated liquefaction potential of the soil encountered in our borings assuming a historic high groundwater depth deeper than 50 feet. Our analysis was based on the modified Seed Simplified Procedure as detailed by Youd et al. (2001) and Martin and Lew (1999), which compares the seismic demand on a soil layer (Cyclic Stress Ratio, or CSR) to the capacity of the soil to resist liquefaction (Cyclic Resistance Ratio, or CRR), (Youd et al, 2001). A minimum required factor of safety of 1.3 was used in our analysis, with factor of safety defined as CRR/CSR. As required, our analysis assumes that the design earthquake would occur while the groundwater is at its estimated historically highest level. In the SPT method, soil resistance to liquefaction is estimated based on several factors, including SPT sampling blow counts normalized and corrected for several factors including fines content, and overburden Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 12 - pressure. Soil plasticity and moisture content are also considered in an evaluation of liquefaction. Parameters utilized in our analysis include Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results from the borings, visual descriptions of soil samples retrieved, and geotechnical laboratory test results. Based on our analysis, the nature of the onsite soils, and the historically deep groundwater level, the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered very low. 2.6.2 Seismically Induced Settlement During a strong seismic event, seismically induced settlement can occur within loose to moderately dense, dry or saturated granular soil. Settlement caused by ground shaking is often nonuniformly distributed, which can result in differential settlement. We have performed analyses to estimate the potential for seismically induced settlement using the method of Tokimatsu and Seed (1987), and based on Martin and Lew (1999), considering the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) peak ground acceleration (PGAM). The results of our analyses suggest that the onsite soils are susceptible to less than an 1-inch of seismic settlement based on the MCE. Differential settlement due to seismic loading is assumed to be less than ½ inch over a horizontal distance of 40 feet based on the MCE. A summary of seismic settlement analysis is included in Appendix D. 2.6.3 Seiches and Tsunamis Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. Tsunamis are waves generated in large bodies of water by fault displacement or major ground movement. Based on the location of the site and distance from contained water facilities, seiches and tsunamis are not a hazard to the site. 2.7 Slope Stability and Landslides The potential for seismically induced landsliding to occur at the site is considered low due to the absence of slopes at the site. In addition, based on review of the Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 13 - Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Orange Quadrangle (CGS, 1998), the site is not located within an area that has been identified by the State of California as being potentially susceptible to seismically induced landslides (Figure 5, Seismic Hazard Map). Proposed slopes, while not anticipated, should be engineered and constructed at a gradient of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter. 2.8 Flooding and Dam Inundation Potential The site is not located within the 100-year or 500-year flood plain based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps (see Figure 7, Flood Hazard Zone Map). Flooding can also result from the failure of dams. Based on our review of dam inundation data by the California Office of Emergency Services (OES), the site is not located near dams or in an area shown as susceptible to dam inundation, see Figure 6, Dam Inundation Map. 2.9 Infiltration Testing Infiltration tests was conducted in two of the excavated borings (LB-4 and LB-5) to estimate the infiltration rate of the onsite soils at the depths tested. The infiltration test was conducted at bottom depths of approximately 14 and 20.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Well permeameter tests are useful for field measurements of soil infiltration rates, and are suited for testing when the design depth of the basin or chamber is deeper than current existing grades. It should be noted that this is a clean-water, small-scale test, and that correction factors need to be applied. The test consists of excavating a boring to the depth of the test (or deeper if it is partially backfilled with soil and a bentonite plug with a thin soil covering is placed just below the design test elevation). A layer of clean sand or gravel is placed in the boring bottom to support temporary perforated well casing pipe and a float valve. In addition, coarse sand is poured around the outside of the well casing within the test zone to prevent the boring from caving/collapsing or eroding when water is added. The float valve, lowered into the boring inside the casing, adds water stored in barrels at the top of the hole to the boring as water infiltrates into the soil, while maintaining a relatively constant water head in the boring. The incremental infiltration rate as measured during intervals of the test is defined as the incremental flow rate of water infiltrated, divided by the surface area of the Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 14 - infiltration interface. The test was conducted based on the USBR 7300-89 test method. Raw infiltration rates for the well permeameter tests may be assumed to be about 4.5 in/hour within the gravel layer generally encountered at a depth of 15 to 20 feet bgs, but should be considered negligible in the clayey sand layer at a depth of approximately 10 feet in boring LB-4. These are raw values and do not include a factor of safety or correction. Results of infiltration testing are provided in Appendix B. Further discussion on infiltration testing and recommendations are included in Section 3.9. 2.10 Other Potential Hazards Listed on CGS Note 48 The following naturally occurring hazards are not believed to exist at the site nor in the region: methane gas, hydrogen-sulfide gas, tar seeps, volcanic eruption, radon-22 gas, and naturally occurring asbestos in geologic formations associated with serpentine. We are unaware of significant subsidence or damage from subsidence near the site due to groundwater withdrawal. Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 15 - 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of this study, the proposed fire station is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. No severe geologic or soils related issues were identified that would preclude development of the site for the proposed improvements. The most significant geotechnical issues at the site are those related to the potential for strong seismic shaking, undocumented fill soils and potentially compressible soils. Good planning and design of the project can limit the impact of these constraints. Remedial recommendations for these and other geotechnical issues are provided in the following sections. 3.1 General Earthwork and Grading All grading should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications presented in Appendix E, General Earthwork Recommendations, unless specifically revised or amended below or by future recommendations based on final development plans. 3.1.1 Site Preparation Prior to construction, the site should be cleared of vegetation, trash and debris, which should be disposed of offsite. Any underground obstructions should be removed, as should trees and their root systems. Resulting cavities should be properly backfilled and compacted. Efforts should be made to locate existing utility lines. Those lines should be removed or rerouted if they interfere with the proposed construction, and the resulting cavities should be properly backfilled and compacted. Although not encountered during this investigation, abandoned septic tanks, seepage pits, or other buried structures, or items related to past site uses may be present. If such items are encountered during grading, they will require further evaluation and special consideration. 3.1.2 Overexcavation and Recompaction To reduce the potential for adverse differential settlement of the proposed improvements, the underlying subgrade soil should be prepared in such a manner that a uniform response to the applied loads is achieved. For the proposed fire station building and apparatus building constructed with Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 16 - shallow foundations, we recommend that onsite soils be overexcavated and recompacted to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the proposed footings or 5 feet below existing grade, whichever is deeper. In addition, existing undocumented artificial fill in structural areas should be removed to undisturbed native alluvial soil. Where feasible, overexcavation and recompaction should extend a minimum horizontal distance of 5 feet from perimeter edges of the proposed footings, or a distance equal to the depth of overexcavation, whichever is greater. Local conditions, such as those interpreted in boring LB-5 may require that deeper overexcavation be performed; such areas should be evaluated by Leighton during grading. Areas outside these overexcavation limits planned for asphalt or concrete pavement, flatwork, and areas to receive fill should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 18 inches below the existing ground surface or 12 inches below the proposed subgrade, whichever is deeper. Overexcavation for site walls should extend a minimum 2 feet below the bottom of the wall footings. All excavation or removal bottoms should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of fill or other improvements to determine that geotechnically suitable soil is exposed. The overexcavation in the building area may also require observation by the City Grading Inspector prior to fill placement. Excavation bottoms observed to be suitable for fill placement or other improvements should be scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches, moisture-conditioned as necessary to achieve a moisture content approximately 2 to 3 percentage points above the optimum moisture content, and then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory derived maximum density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 (Modified Proctor). Once final development plans are completed and building loads have been calculated this information should be provided to Leighton for geotechnical review to ensure our recommendations have been properly interpreted and remain appropriate for the project as currently proposed. Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 17 - 3.1.3 Fill Placement and Compaction The onsite soil is geotechnically suitable for use as compacted structural fill, provided it is free of debris and oversized material (cobbles) (greater than 6 inches in largest dimension). Any so il to be placed as fill, whether onsite or imported material, should be reviewed and possibly tested by Leighton. Based upon the anticipated conceptual plan, site grading is not expected to require significant cut or fill; however, excavations as deep as 5 to 6 feet with localized deeper excavation should be expected for the removal and reworking of all undocumented fill and overexcavation of building foundations. All fill soil should be placed in thin, loose lifts, moisture- conditioned as necessary to achieve a moisture content approximately 2 to 3 percentage points above the optimum moisture content, and then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory derived maximum density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 (Modified Proctor). Aggregate base for pavement should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. 3.1.4 Import Fill Soil If import soil is to be placed as fill, it should be geotechnically accepted by Leighton. Preferably at least 3 working days prior to proposed import to the site, the contractor should provide Leighton pertinent information of the proposed import soil, such as location of the soil, whether stockpiled or native in place, and pertinent geotechnical reports if available. We recommend that a Leighton representative visit the proposed import site to observe the soil conditions and obtain representative soil samples. Potential issues may include soil that is more expansive than onsite soil, soil that is too wet, soil that is too rocky or too dissimilar to onsite soils, oversize material, organics, debris, environmental unsuitability etc. 3.1.5 Shrinkage and Subsidence The change in volume of excavated and recompacted soil varies according to soil type and location. This volume change is represented as a percentage increase (bulking) or decrease (shrinkage) in volume of fill after removal and recompaction. Subsidence occurs as in-place soil (e.g., natural ground) is moisture-conditioned and densified to receive fill, such Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 18 - as in processing an overexcavation bottom. Subsidence is in addition to shrinkage due to recompaction of fill soil. Field and laboratory data used in our calculations included laboratory-measured maximum dry densities for soil types encountered at the subject site, the measured in-place densities of soils encountered, sampling blow counts, and our experience. We preliminarily estimate the following earth volume changes will occur during grading: Shrinkage and Subsidence Shrinkage Approximately 10 +/- 3 percent Subsidence (overexcavation bottom processing) Approximately 0.1 foot The level of fill compaction, variations in the dry density of the existing soils and other factors influence the amount of volume change. Some adjustments to earthwork volume should be anticipated during grading of the site. 3.2 Foundation Recommendations The following recommendations are based on soils with a very low expansion potential. The structural engineer should design the footing reinforcement in accordance with current California Building Code (CBC) requirements. Local agencies, the structural engineer or the CBC may have requirements that are more stringent. Overexcavation and recompaction of the footing subgrade soil should be performed as detailed in Section 3.1.2. 3.2.1 Minimum Embedment and Width Based on our preliminary investigation, footings should have a minimum embedment depth and width per the 2016 CBC. These minimums include a depth and width of 12 inches. Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 19 - 3.2.2 Allowable Bearing An allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds-per-square-foot (psf) may be used, based on the minimum embedment depth and width above. This allowable bearing value may be increased by 200 psf per foot increase in depth or width to a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. These allowable bearing pressures are for total dead load and sustained live loads. Footing reinforcement should be designed by the structural engineer. 3.2.3 Lateral Load Resistance Soil resistance available to withstand lateral loads on a shallow foundation is a function of the frictional resistance along the base of the footing and the passive resistance that may develop as the face of the structure tends to move into the soil. The frictional resistance between the base of the foundation and the subgrade soil may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.40. The passive resistance may be computed using an allowable equivalent fluid pressure of 240 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), assuming there is constant contact between the footing and undisturbed soil. The maximum passive resistance should not exceed 3,500 psf. The coefficient of friction and passive resistance may be combined without further reduction. 3.2.4 Increase in Bearing and Friction - Short Duration Loads The allowable bearing pressure and coefficient of friction values may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration, such as those imposed by wind and seismic forces. 3.2.5 Settlement Estimates The recommended allowable bearing capacity is generally based on a total allowable, post construction settlement of 1 inch. Differential settlement due to static loading is estimated at ½ inch over a horizontal distance of 30 feet. Since settlement is a function of footing sustained load, size and contact bearing pressure, differential settlement can be expected between adjacent columns or walls where a large differential loading condition exists. Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 20 - 3.3 Recommendations for Slabs-On-Grade Concrete slabs-on-grade should be designed by the structural engineer in accordance with the current CBC for a soil with a very low expansion potential. Laboratory testing should be conducted at finish grade to evaluate the Expansion Index (EI) of near-surface subgrade soils. Where conventional light floor loading conditions exist, the following minimum recommendations should be used. More stringent requirements may be required by local agencies, the structural engineer, the architect, or the CBC. Slabs-on-grade should have the following minimum recommended components: • Subgrade Moisture Conditioning: The subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned to at least 3 percentage points above optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 18 inches prior to placing steel or concrete. • Concrete Thickness: Thickness of slabs-on-grade should be designed by the structural engineer, but should be at least 4 inches thick (this is referring to the actual minimum thickness, not the nominal thickness). Reinforcing steel should be designed by the structural engineer, but as a minimum (for conventionally reinforced slabs) should be No. 4 rebar placed at 18 inches on center, each direction, mid-depth in the slab. Crack control joints should be placed at 13 feet on center or less, forming approximately square panels. For the apparatus bay, the slab should be a minimum of 8 inches thick and underlain by 6 inches of aggregate base. Reinforcing steel should be designed by the structural engineer, but as a minimum should be No. 4 rebar placed at 18 inches on center, each direction, mid-depth in the slab. Construction joints should be designed by the structural engineer, but should be spaced no more than 13 feet on center, forming square sections. • Moisture Vapor Retarder: We recommend a minimum of a 15-mil vapor retarder should be placed below slabs where moisture-sensitive floor coverings or equipment is planned. Since moisture will otherwise be transmitted up from the soil through the concrete, it is important that an intact vapor retarder be installed. We recommend that the vapor retarder intended for the specific conditions present be used and meet the requirements of ASTM E1745 and installed per ASTM E1643. The structural engineer should specify pertinent concrete design parameters and moisture migration prevention measures, such as whether or not a sand blotter layer should be Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 21 - placed over the vapor retarder. If sand is placed on top of the vapor retarder, the contractor should not allow the sand to become wet prior to concrete placement (e.g., sand should not be placed if rain is expected). Sharp objects, such as gravel or other protruding objects that could puncture the moisture retarder should be removed from the subgrade prior to placing the vapor retarder, or a stronger vapor retarder intended for the specific conditions present can be used. Mechanically fractured gravel and small cobbles observed during drilling and sampling resulted in angular sharp fragments that could puncture the barrier. Minor cracking of the concrete as it cures, due to drying and shrinkage is normal and should be expected. However, cracking is often aggravated by a high water/cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of placement, small nominal aggregate size, aggregate that is not sufficiently clean, and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry, and/or windy weather conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture fluctuations can also be expected. Low slump concrete can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. Additionally, our experience indicates that reinforcement in slabs and foundations can generally reduce the potential for concrete cracking. The structural engineer should consider these components in slab design and specifications. Moisture retarders can reduce, but not eliminate moisture vapor rise from the underlying soils up through the slab. Moisture retarders should be designed and constructed in accordance with the applicable American Concrete Institute, Portland Cement Association, Post-Tensioning Institute, ASTM International, and California Building Code requirements and guidelines. Leighton does not practice in the field of moisture vapor transmission recommend that a qualified person, such as the flooring subcontractor and/or structural engineer, be consulted with to evaluate the general and specific moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed construction. That person (or persons) should provide recommendations for mitigation of potential adverse impact of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structures as deemed appropriate. In addition, the recommendations in this report and our services in general are not intended to address mold prevention, since we, along with geotechnical consultants in general, do not practice in the area of mold prevention. If specific Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 22 - recommendations are desired, a professional mold prevention consultant should be contacted. 3.4 Seismic Design Parameters Seismic parameters presented in this report should be considered during project design. In order to reduce the effects of ground shaking produced by regional seismic events, seismic design should be performed in accordance with the most recent edition of the California Building Code (CBC). The seismic design parameters listed in Table 1 of Section 0 of this report should be considered for the seismic analysis of the subject site. 3.5 Lateral Earth Pressures The following retaining wall recommendations are included for design consideration of walls with a height less than 6 feet. We recommend that retaining walls be backfilled with very low expansive soil and constructed with a backdrain in accordance with the recommendations provided on Figure 8, Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail. Using expansive soil as retaining wall backfill will result in higher lateral earth pressures exerted on the wall and are, therefore, not recommended. Retaining wall locations and configurations are unknown at the time of this report. Table 2 - Retaining Wall Design Parameters Static Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf) Condition Level Backfill Active 40 At-Rest (drained, compacted-fill backfill) 60 Passive (ultimate) 360 (Max. 5,000 psf) The above values do not contain an appreciable factor of safety, so the structural engineer should apply the applicable factors of safety and/or load factors during design. Cantilever walls that are designed to yield at least 0.001H, where H is equal to the wall height, may be designed using the active condition. Rigid walls and walls braced at the top should be designed using the at-rest condition. Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 23 - Passive pressure is used to compute soil resistance to lateral structural movement. In addition, for sliding resistance, a frictional resistance coefficient of 0.40 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. The lateral passive resistance should be taken into account only if it is ensured that the soil providing passive resistance, embedded against the foundation elements, will remain intact with time. A soil unit weight of 120 pcf may be assumed for calculating the actual weight of the soil over the wall footing. In addition to the above lateral forces due to retained earth, surcharge due to improvements, such as an adjacent structure or traffic loading, should be considered in the design of the retaining wall. Loads applied within a 1:1 projection from the surcharging structure on the stem of the wall should be considered in the design. A third of uniform vertical surcharge-loads should be applied at the surface as a horizontal pressure on cantilever (active) retaining walls, while half of uniform vertical surcharge-loads should be applied as a horizontal pressure on braced (at-rest) retaining walls. To account for automobile parking surcharge, we suggest that a uniform horizontal pressure of 100 psf (for restrained walls) or 70 psf (for cantilever walls) be added for design, where autos are parked within a horizontal distance behind the retaining wall less than the height of the retaining wall stem. We recommend that the wall designs for walls 6 feet tall or taller be checked seismically using an additive seismic Equivalent Fluid Pressure (EFP) of 28 pcf, which is added to the EFP. The additive seismic EFP should be applied at the retained midpoint. Conventional retaining wall footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches and a minimum embedment of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf may be used for retaining wall footing design, based on the minimum footing width and depth. This bearing value may be increased by 200 psf per foot increase in width or depth to a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. 3.6 Cement Type and Corrosion Protection Based on the results of laboratory testing (Appendix C), concrete structures in contact with the onsite soil will have negligible exposure to water-soluble sulfates in the soil. Therefore, common Type II cement may be used for concrete Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 24 - construction. Concrete should be designed in accordance with ACI 318-14, Section 4.2 (ACI, 2014), adopted by the 2016 CBC (Section 1904A.2). Based on our laboratory testing, the onsite soil is considered corrosive to ferrous metals. Metallic utilities should be avoided, or typical corrosion protection of underground metallic utilities should be considered. Corrosion information presented in this report should be provided to your underground utility contractors. 3.7 Pavement Design Based on the design procedures outlined in the current Caltrans Highway Design Manual, and using an assumed design R-value of 40 for compacted silty sand subgrade soils, preliminary flexible pavement sections may consist of the following for the Traffic Indices (TI) indicated. Table 3 – Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Pavement Sections Traffic Index Asphaltic Concrete (AC) Thickness (inches) Class 2 Aggregate Base (AB) Thickness (inches) 5 or less (auto access) 3.0 4.0 7 (truck access) 4.0 4.0 For fire truck (60,000-pound “apparatus”) lanes, asphalt pavements designed for a TI=7 are recommended. However, note that undisturbed apparatus outrigger loads could cause local asphalt pavement punching damage. When possible, outrigger loads should be distributed over asphalt pavements with planks and plywood. Otherwise, areas where outrigger loads are anticipated could be paved with 8-inch-thick concrete as described below. Portland cement concrete pavement sections were calculated in accordance with procedures developed by the Portland Cement Association. Concrete paving sections for three Traffic Indices (TIs) are presented below. Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 25 - Table 4 – Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Sections Traffic Index Asphaltic Concrete (AC) Thickness (inches) Class 2 Aggregate Base (AB) Thickness (inches) 5 or less (auto access) 6.0 4.0 7 (truck access) 8.0 6.0 We have assumed that this Portland cement concrete will have a compressive strength of at least 4,000 psi. Reinforcement should be specified by the structural engineer, but should be a minimum of #3 rebar at 18 inches on center each way. The PCC pavement sections should be provided with crack-control joints spaced no more than 13 feet on center each way. If sawcuts are used, they should have a minimum depth of ¼ of the slab thickness and made within 24 hours of concrete placement. We recommend that sections be as nearly square as possible. PCC sidewalks should be at least 4 inches thick over prepared subgrade soil, with construction joints no more than 8 feet on center each way, with sections as nearly square as possible. Use of reinforcing will help reduce severity of cracking. All pavement construction should be performed in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. Field observations and periodic testing, as needed during placement of the base course materials, should be undertaken to ensure that the requirements of the standard specifications are fulfilled. Prior to placement of aggregate base, the subgrade soil should be processed to a minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture-conditioned, as necessary, and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Aggregate base should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. 3.8 Infiltration Recommendations Infiltration Rate: We recommend an unfactored (small-scale) infiltration rate of 4.5 inches per hour be used for preliminary design for an infiltration system designed at a depth of 15 to 20 feet below the existing grade within the natural gravel layer. The infiltration chamber may be deepened by excavating trenches in the bottom of the infiltration chamber excavation for the length of the excavation, and backfilling Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 26 - these trenches with ASTM C33 Fine Aggregate (washed concrete sand). Leighton should observe the soil in the excavation to confirm these recommendations. We recommend that a correction factor/safety factor be applied to the infiltration rate in conformance with the Orange County guidelines, since monitoring of actual facility performance has shown that actual infiltration rates are lower than for small- scale tests. The small-scale infiltration rate should be divided by a correction factor of at least 2 for buried chambers, and at least 3 for open basins or for conditions where retained water will be exposed to the open atmosphere, but the correction/safety factor may be higher based on project-specific aspects. The infiltration rates described herein are for a clean, unsilted infiltration surface in native, sandy alluvial soil. These values may be reduced over time as silting of the infiltration facility occurs. Furthermore, if the basin or chamber bottom is allowed to be compacted by heavy equipment, this value is expected to be significantly reduced. Infiltration of water through soil is highly dependent on such factors as grain size distribution of the soil particles, particle shape, fines content, clay content, and density. Small changes in soil conditions, including density, can cause large differences in observed infiltration rates. Infiltration is not suitable in compacted fill. It should be noted that during periods of prolonged precipitation, the underlying soils tend to become saturated to greater and greater depths/extents. Therefore, infiltration rates tend to decrease with prolonged rainfall. It is difficult to extrapolate longer-term, full-scale infiltration rates from small-scale tests, and as such, this is a significant source of uncertainty in infiltration rates. Additional Review and Evaluation: Infiltration rates are anticipated to vary significantly based on the location and depth. Infiltration concepts should be discussed with Leighton as infiltration plans are being developed. Leighton should review all infiltration plans, including specific locations and invert depths of proposed facilities. Further testing may be needed based on the design of infiltration facilities, particularly considering their type, depth and location. General Design Considerations: The periodic flow of water carrying sediments into the infiltration facility, plus the introduction of wind-blown sediments and sediments from erosion of basin side walls, can eventually cause the bottom of the facility to accumulate a layer of silt, which has the potential of significantly reducing the overall infiltration rate. Therefore, we recommend that significant Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 27 - amounts of silt/sediment not be allowed to flow into the facility within stormwater, especially during construction of the project and prior to achieving mature landscape on site. We recommend that an easily maintained, robust silt/sediment removal system be installed to pretreat storm water before it enters the infiltration facility. As infiltrating water can seep within the soil strata nearly horizontally for long distances, it is important to consider the impact that infiltration facilities can have on nearby subterranean structures, such as basement walls or open excavations, whether onsite or offsite, and whether existing or planned. Any such nearby features should be identified and evaluated as to whether infiltrating water can impact these. Such features should be brought to Leighton’s attention as they are identified. Infiltration facilities should not be constructed adjacent to or under buildings. Setbacks should be discussed with Leighton during the planning process. Infiltration facilities should be constructed with spillways or other appropriate means that would cause overfilling to not be a concern to the facility or nearby improvements. For buried chambers, control/access manhole covers should not contain holes or should be screened to prevent mosquitos from entering the chambers. Construction Considerations: We recommend that Leighton evaluate the infiltration facility excavations, to confirm that granular, undisturbed alluvium is exposed in the bottoms and sides. Additional excavation or evaluation may be required if silty or clayey soils are exposed. It is critical to infiltration that the basin or chamber bottom not be allowed to be compacted during construction or maintenance; rubber-tired equipment and vehicles should not be allowed to operate on the bottom. We recommend that at least the bottom 3 feet of the basins or chambers be excavated with an excavator or similar. If fill material is needed to be placed in the basin, such as due to removal of uncontrolled artificial fill, the fill material should be select and free-draining sand, and should be observed and evaluated by Leighton. Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 28 - Maintenance Considerations: The infiltration facilities should be routinely monitored, especially before and during the rainy season, and corrective measures should be implemented as/when needed. Things to check for include proper upkeep, proper infiltration, absence of accumulated silt, and that de-silting filters/features are clean and functioning. Pretreatment desilting features should be cleaned and maintained per manufacturers’ recommendations. Even with measures to prevent silt from flowing into the infiltration facility, accumulated silt may need to be removed occasionally as part of maintenance. 3.9 Temporary Excavations All temporary excavations, including utility trenches, retaining wall excavations and other excavations should be performed in accordance with project plans, specifications and all OSHA requirements. Contractors should be advised that sand and gravelly fill soils should be considered Type C soils as defined in the California Construction Safety Orders. No surcharge loads should be permitted within a horizontal distance equal to the height of cut or 5 feet, whichever is greater from the top of the slope, unless the cut is shored appropriately. Excavations that extend below an imaginary plane inclined at 45 degrees below the edge of any adjacent existing site foundation should be properly shored to maintain support of the adjacent structures. Cantilever shoring should be designed based on an active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf. If excavations are braced at the top and at specific design intervals, the active pressure may then be approximated by a rectangular soil pressure distribution with the pressure per foot of width equal to 25H, where H is equal to the depth of the excavation being shored. During construction, the soil conditions should be regularly evaluated to verify that conditions are as anticipated. The contractor should be responsible for providing the "competent person" required by OSHA, standards to evaluate soil conditions. Close coordination between the competent person and the geotechnical engineer should be maintained to facilitate construction while providing safe excavations. Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 29 - 3.10 Trench Backfill Utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with Sections 306-1.2 and 306-1.3 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, (SSPWC, “Greenbook”), 2018 Edition. Utility trenches may be backfilled with onsite material free of rubble, debris, organic and oversized material up to 3 inches in largest dimension. Prior to backfilling trenches, pipes should be bedded in and covered with either: (1) Granular Bedding: a uniform sand material with a Sand Equivalent (SE) greater-than-or-equal-to (≥) 30, passing the No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve (or as specified by the pipe manufacturer). (2) CLSM: Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) conforming to Section 201-6 of the SPWC. CLSM bedding should be placed to -foot (0.3 m) over the top of the conduit, and vibrated. Pipe bedding should extend at least 4 inches below the pipeline invert and at least 12 inches over the top of the pipeline. The bedding and shading sand is recommended to be densified in place by vibratory, lightweight compaction equipment. Trench backfill over the pipe bedding zone may consist of native and clean fill soils. All backfill should be placed in thin lifts (appropriate for the type of compaction equipment), moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum, and mechanically compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory derived maximum density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. 3.11 Surface Drainage Inadequate control of runoff water and/or poorly controlled irrigation can cause the onsite soils to expand and/or shrink, producing heaving and/or settlement of foundations, flatwork, walls, and other improvements. Maintaining adequate surface drainage, proper disposal of runoff water, and control of irrigation should help reduce the potential for future soil moisture problems. Positive surface drainage should be designed to be directed away from foundations and toward approved drainage devices, such as gutters, paved drainage swales, or watertight area drains and collector pipes. Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 30 - Surface drainage should be provided to prevent ponding of water adjacent to the structures. In general, the area around the buildings should slope away from the building. We recommend that unpaved landscaped areas adjacent to the buildings be avoided. Roof runoff should be carried to suitable drainage outlets by watertight drain pipes or over paved areas. 3.12 Additional Geotechnical Services The geotechnical recommendations presented in this report are based on subsurface conditions as interpreted from limited subsurface explorations and limited laboratory testing. Geotechnical recommendations provided in this report are based on information available at the time the report was prepared and may change as plans are developed. Additional geotechnical investigation and analysis may be required based on final improvement plans. Leighton should review the site and grading plans when available and comment further on the geotechnical aspects of the project. Geotechnical observation and testing should be conducted during excavation and all phases of grading operations. Our conclusions and preliminary recommendations should be reviewed and verified by Leighton during construction and revised accordingly if geotechnical conditions encountered vary from our preliminary findings and interpretations. Geotechnical observation and testing should be provided: • After completion of site clearing. • During overexcavation of compressible soil. • During compaction of all fill materials. • After excavation of all footings and prior to placement of concrete. • During utility trench backfilling and compaction. • During pavement subgrade and base preparation. • When any unusual conditions are encountered. Leighton Fire Station SP 4071 Orange, CA 12482.001 - 31 - 4.0 LIMITATIONS This report was based in part on data obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, soil excavations, samples, and tests. Such information is, by necessity, incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing soil or geologic conditions can be present within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, our findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that Leighton Consulting, Inc. will provide geotechnical observation and testing during construction. Please refer to the GBA “Important Information about This Geotechnical Engineering Report” presented on at the end of this report. This report was prepared for the sole use of WLC Architects, Inc. for application to the design of the proposed City of Orange Fire Station 1 in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time in California. Leighton Chapman Ave ProspectStGrand AveWandaRdParkerStGlassell StTustin StGlassell StGrandAveChapman Ave M e m o r y L n Collins Ave Chapman Ave GlassellStC h a p m a n A v e TustinAveVilla Park Rd Katella Ave Katella Ave Town and Country Rd ProspectStLa Veta Ave ³ 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Figure 1 Scale: Leighton Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2019 Thematic Information: Leighton 1 " = 2,000 ' Project: 12482.001 Eng/Geol: JDH/PB Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12482\001\GIS\12482.001_Fig1_SLM_2019-08-21.mxd on 9/6/2019 1:29:57 PM Author: (kmanchikanti) Date: September 2019 SITE LOCATION MAPProposed Fire Station 1 105 South Water Street City of Orange, California ?sE ?ìE Approximate Site Location Approximate Site Location ·- ... "' ' ( c .. 11. : <r"jl J!-� •• " .... _,. .. -- ... "': t,-,&1., :...... ,'f . "•· , • ... �"" • _.. L �· ,• ' ,., • ir :s,nu I ! It 'c. ' • 't • �vc• �� D .., !;�w.t ... a � .. � !::: • '-- •• "''T' - '··'� • ' Project: 12482 001 Eng/Geol: JOH/PB Scaret • = 80 · Date: September 2019 S.H Mai,. ESRIArcGIS Online 2019 Ttemabc: lnlt>rmallon. l<t>ghlon Author (lunanc) EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP Proposed Fire Station 1 105 South Water Street City of Orange, California Approximate boring location showing total depth (T.D.) in feet @ below ground surface. ,::-� Groundwater (GW) not ioo,w encountered during drilling 1------i Location of Geotechnical Cross- A ,.. section (see Figure 2a) Figure 2 AfuQofQofAfuAfuAfuQofQofT.D.20'No G.W.T.D.51.5'No G.W.T.D.20.7'No G.W.T.D.20.5'No G.W.T.D.51.5'No G.W.T.D.20.5'No G.W.T.D.20'No G.W.??????????W-ES-NLB-4(Proj. I 40')LB-3(Proj. I 15')LB-5(Proj. I 100')LB-5(Proj. I 65')LB-4(Proj. I 60')LB-3(Proj. I 15')LB-1(Proj. I 55')Proposed Fire Station BuildingIntersectionB-B'Proposed Fire Station Building180200220ELEVATION (FEET)AA'B'B180200220ELEVATION (FEET)180200220ELEVATION (FEET)180200220ELEVATION (FEET)IntersectionA-A' V:\DRAFTING\12482\001\CAD\2019-09-25\12482-001_F2A-CS_2019-09-25.DWG (09-25-19 11:50:54AM) Plotted by: btranProj: 12482.001GEOTECHNICAL CROSS SECTIONSA-A' AND B-B'Proposed Fire Station 1105 South Water Street, City of Orange, CaliforniaEng/Geol: JEH/PBScale: 1"=20'Date: September 2019Drafted By: BQTChecked By: BQTFigure 2ALeightonARTIFICIAL FILL UNDOCUMENTEDQUATERNARY-AGE OLD ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITSAfuQofLEGEND- ,- I __J - - - ,- - 1 .---- 1 - i I l - I - - - - ;-- - - - - _l_ -- - - -- - - - - - _L - _,L - l _J - 7 -- � l - I - -- I� .l --,,-- I - .---- .l - .l , 1 - I - - I r-- - . - - J_ - - - - -- _L - .---- l - - . l - � - ' - I - - l j � / TssQw Qyf Qof Qvof TshTv³ 0 3,000 6,000 Feet Figure 3 Scale: Leighton Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2019 Thematic Information: Leighton, USGS 1 " = 3,000 ' Project: 12482.001 Eng/Geol: JDH/PB Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12482\001\GIS\12482.001_Fig3_RGM_2019-08-21.mxd on 9/6/2019 3:05:40 PM Author: (kmanchikanti) Date: September 2019 REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP Proposed Fire Station 1 105 South Water Street City of Orange, California Approximate Site Location Geologic Unit Qw, Alluvial Wash Deposits Qyf, Young Alluvial Fan Deposits Qof, Old Alluvial Fan Deposits Qvof, Very Old Alluvial Fan Deposits Tsh, Fine-grained Tertiary age formations of sedimentary origin Tss, Coarse-grained Tertiary age formations of sedimentary origin Tv, Tertiary age formations of volcanic origin ³ 0510 Miles Figure 4 Scale: Leighton Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2019 Thematic Information: Leighton 1 " = 5 miles Project: 12375.001 Eng/Geol: JDH/PB Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12482\001\GIS\12482-001_F04_RF_HSM_2019-08-21.mxd on 9/25/2019 1:00:38 PM Author: Leighton Geomatics (kmanchikanti) Date: September 2019 REGIONAL FAULT AND HISTORIC SEISMICITY MAPProposed Fire Station 1 105 South Water Street, City of Orange, California Approximate Site Location Legend Faults Historic (<200 years) Holocene (<10K years) Quaternary (<1.6M years) Pre-Quaternary (>1.6M years) Moment Magnitude Range !4 - 5 !5 - 6 !6 - 7 !7 - 8 ³ 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Figure 5 Scale: Leighton Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2019 Thematic Information: Leighton 1 " = 2,000 ' Project: 12482.001 Eng/Geol: JDH/PB Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12482\001\GIS\12482-001_F05_SHM_2019-08-21.mxd on 9/25/2019 1:10:37 PM Author: Leighton Geomatics (kmanchikanti) Date: September 2019 SEISMIC HAZARD MAP Proposed Fire Station 1 105 South Water Street City of Orange, California Approximate Site Location Legend Landslide Hazard Zone Liquefaction Susceptibility Zone ?sE ?ìE Approximate Site Location ³ 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Figure 6 Scale: Leighton Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2019 Thematic Information: Leighton, CA DWR, FEMA 1 " = 2,000 ' Project: 12482.001 Eng/Geol: JDH/PB Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12482\001\GIS\12482-001_F06_DIM_2019-08-21.mxd on 9/25/2019 1:12:27 PM Author: Leighton Geomatics (kmanchikanti) Date: September 2019 DAM INUNDATION MAP Proposed Fire Station 1 105 South Water Street City of Orange, California Approximate Site Location Dam Inundation Zones Prado Dam Villa Park Dam Approximate Site Location ?sE ?ìE ³ 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Figure 7 Scale: Leighton Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2019 Thematic Information: Leighton; FEMA 1 " = 2,000 ' Project: 12482.001 Eng/Geol: JDH/PB Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12482\001\GIS\12482-001_F07_FHM_2019-08-21.mxd on 9/25/2019 1:15:03 PM Author: Leighton Geomatics (kmanchikanti) Date: September 2019 FLOOD HAZARD ZONE MAP Proposed Fire Station 1 105 South Water Street City of Orange, California Approximate Site Location FEMA Flood Zone 500 Year Flood Plain 100 Year Flood Plain Approximate Site Location Figure 8 SUBDRAIN OPTIONS AND BACKFILL WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF �so OPTION 1: PIPE SURROUNDED WITH CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL OPTION 2: GRAVEL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC WATERPROOFING (SEE GENERAL NOTES) WEEP HOLE (SEE NOTE 5) LEVELOYi SLOPE ' ���� SLOPE OR LEVEL 12" MINIMUM CLASS 2 PERMEABLE FILTER MATERIAL (SEE GRADATION) 4 INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE (SEE NOTE 3) 12" WATERPROOFING --+-i (SEE GENERAL NOTES) WEEP HOLE (SEE NOTE 5) SLOPE OR LEVEL FILTER FABRIC (SEE NOTE 4) 12" MINIMUM ___ % TO 1 V2 INCH SIZE GRAVEL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC Class 2 Filter Permeable Material Gradation 3/4" 3/8" No. 4 No.8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 Per Caltrans Specifications Sieve Size Percent Passing 1" 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 GENERAL NOTES: * Waterproofing should be provided where moisture nuisance problem through the wall is undesirable. * Water proofing of the walls is not under purview of the geotechnical engineer * All drains should have a gradient of 1 percent minimum *Outlet portion of the subdrain should have a 4-inch diameter solid pipe discharged into a suitable disposal area designed by the project engineer. The subdrain pipe should be accessible for maintenance (rodding) *Other subdrain backfill options are subject to the review by the geotechnical engineer and modification of design parameters. 8 0 G Leighton RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL FOR WALLS 6 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF �so Notes: 1) Sand should have a sand equivalent of 30 or greater and may be densified by water jetting. 2) 1 Cu. ft. per ft. of 1/4- to 1 1/2-inch size gravel wrapped in filter fabric 3) Pipe type should be ASTM 01527 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) SOR35 or ASTM 01785 Polyvinyl Chloride plastic (PVC), Schedule 40, Armco A2000 PVC, or approved equivalent. Pipe should be installed with perforations down. Perforations should be 3/8 inch in diameter placed at the ends of a 120-degree arc in two rows at 3-inch on center (staggered) � "O 4) Filter fabric should be Mirafi 140NC or approved equivalent. c: -� 5) Weephole should be 3-inch minimum diameter and provided at 10-foot maximum intervals. If exposure is permitted, weepholes should be :g � located 12 inches above finished grade. If exposure is not permitted such as for a wall adjacent to a sidewalk/curb, a pipe under the sidewalk -g to be discharged through the curb face or equivalent should be provided. For a basement-type wall, a proper subdrain outlet system should be � provided. u f 6) Retaining wall plans should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer. - � 7) Walls over six feet in height are subject to a special review by the geotechnical engineer and modifications to the above requirements. c: 1--������������������������������������--����������-f � � .l!l OJ ci E � Cl c: iE � Cl a.: ..._������������������������������������..._����������� Geotechnical-Engineering Report Important Information about This Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help. The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed below, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil- works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical- engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Those who rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one – not even you – should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read this Report in Full Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report in full. You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer about Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when designing the study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few typical factors include: •t he client’s goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and r isk-management preferences; •t he general nature of the structure involved, its size, co nfiguration, and performance criteria; •t he structure’s location and orientation on the site; and •o ther planned or existing site improvements, such as r etaining walls, access roads, parking lots, and un derground utilities. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect: •t he site’s size or shape; •t he function of the proposed structure, as when it’s c hanged from a parking garage to an office building, or f rom a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse; •t he elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or w eight of the proposed structure; •t he composition of the design team; or •p roject ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered. This Report May Not Be Reliable Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: •f or a different client; •f or a different project; •f or a different site (that may or may not include all or a p ortion of the original site); or •b efore important events occurred at the site or adjacent t o it; e.g., man-made events like construction or en vironmental remediation, or natural events like floods, dr oughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If your geotechnical engineer has not indicated an “apply-by” date on the report, ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems. Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly, whenever needed. This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation- dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation. This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical- engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the design team, to: • confer with other design-team members, • help develop specifications, • review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications, and • be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction observation. Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for informational purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical- engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report prepared for a different client, site, or project, or that is more than six months old. Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer’s services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building- envelope or mold specialists. Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent Telephone: 301/565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org APPENDIX A REFERENCES Leighton 12482.001 A-1 APPENDIX A References American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2014, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14), an ACI Standard, 2014, with March 12, 2015 errata. Blake, T.F., 2011, EQFAULT and EQSEARCH, Computer Programs for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from 3-D Fault Sources, Windows Version 3.00b, database updated January, 2011. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010, ASCE Standard/SEI 7-10, an ASCE Standard, 2010. California Building Standards Commission, 2016, 2016 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on 2015 International Building Code, Effective January 1, 2017. California Geological Survey (CGS), 2006, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Orange 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 011, Revised January 17, 2006. California Geological Survey (CGS), 1998, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Seismic Hazard Zones, Orange 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Revised January 17, 2006. California Department of Water Resources (CDWR), 2018, California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) home page, https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Groundwater- Elevation-Monitoring--CASGEM. Morton, D.M., and Miller, F.K., 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2006-1217, scale 1:100,000. Martin, G. R., and Lew, M., ed., 1999, “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California,” Southern California Earthquake Center, dated March 1999. Leighton 12482.001 A-2 Public Works Standard, Inc., 2018, Greenbook, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction: BNI Building News, Anaheim, California. Sprotte, E.C., Fuller, D.R., Greenwood, R.B., Mumm, H.A., Real, C.R., and Sherburne, R.W., 1980, Annual Technical Report Text and Plates, Classification and Mapping of Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits for Purposes of Seismic Zonation, South Coastal Los Angeles Basin, Orange County, California: California Division Of Mines And Geology Open File Report 80-19LA, 268 p. Singer, J.A., 1972, Ground Water in the Tustin Plain, Orange County, California: in Morton, P.K. (editor), Geologic Guidebook to the Northern Peninsular Ranges, Orange and Riverside Counties, California: South Coast Geological Society, pp. 92-96. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008, 2008 Interactive Deaggregations, Based on the 2008 update source and attenuation models of the NSHMP (Peterson and others, 2008), USGS website, https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/ Yerkes, R.F., McCulloh, T.H., Schoellhamer, J.E., and Vedder, J.G., 1965, Geology of the Los Angeles Basin California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-A. Youd, T. L., 1993, Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread Displacement, NCEL Tech. Note 1862, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California. Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.C., Marcuson, W.F. III, Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., Stokoe, K.H. II, 2001, “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 10, October 2001. Leighton APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL BORING AND INFILTRATION LOGS Leighton SM SM GW-GM SP-SM SP-SM @Surface: gravel, sand Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu) @2.5' SILTY SAND (SM), medium dense, orange brown, moist, fine sand, 30% fines (field estimate), 10% gravel (field estimate) subround, subangular, fine gravel, mechanically fractured Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan (Qof) @5' SILTY SAND with gravel (SM), medium dense, orange brown, moist, fine sand, fine to medium gravel, angular due to mechanical fracturing (soil cuttings) @10' GRAVEL with silt and sand (GW-GM), dense, orange brown, moist, fine sand, fine to coarse gravel and cobbles, no recovery @15' SAND with silt to silty sand with gravel (SP-SM), dense, orange brown, moist, fine to medium sand, oxidized throughout, fine angular gravel, due to mechanical fracturing @20' SAND with silt to silty sand with gravel (SP-SM), very dense, orange brown, moist, fine to medium sand, oxidized throughout, fine angular gravel, angular due to mechanical fracturing, low recovery Total Depth: 21 feet No groundwater encountered Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped upon completion of drilling 111 122 121 3 1 7 B-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 S-1 EI 8 14 17 11 23 20 50/5" 41 50/5" 18 50/2.5" 217' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T MM Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Soil Class.8-8-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. Ground Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 1AttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling, Inc.Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1 Logged By Date Drilled 215 210 205 200 195 190 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * MM FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation See Figure 2 Exploration Location Map Proposed Fire Station 1 12482.001 Drilling Method 8"FeetHole Diameter MoistureDry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHSample No.BulkDriven SM GP @Surface: 2 inches Asphalt Concrete Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu) @2.5' SILTY SAND with gravel (SM), medium dense, orange brown, moist, fine sand, fine to medium gravel, subangular to subround, majority of gravel in cuttings, no recovery Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan (Qof) @5' GRAVEL with sand (GP), dense, grayish brown, slightly moist, fine sand, fine to medium gravel, subangular to subround, mechanically fractured gravel, low recovery Drilling refusal at 6 feet No groundwater encountered Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped upon completion of drilling 97 3 B-1 R-1 R-2 23 23 25 25 50/3" 217' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T MM Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Soil Class.8-8-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. Ground Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 1AttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling, Inc.Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2 Logged By Date Drilled 215 210 205 200 195 190 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * MM FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation See Figure 2 Exploration Location Map Proposed Fire Station 1 12482.001 Drilling Method 8"FeetHole Diameter MoistureDry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHSample No.BulkDriven SM SM SP SP GW-GM GW-GM @Surface: Gravel and sand Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu) @2.5' SILTY SAND (SM), loose, brown, moist, fine sand, gravel, fine gravel, angular to subangular gravel, 28% fines @5' SILTY SAND (SM), medium dense, brown, moist, fine sand, no recovery, cuttings same as @2.5' Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan (Qof) @8' SAND with gravel (SP), medium dense, light brown to grayish brown, slightly moist, fine sand, angular to subangular fine gravel @10' SAND with gravel (SP), dense, light brown to grayish brown, slightly moist, fine to medium sand, fine to medium subangular gravel due to mechanical fracturing, clay with gravel in shoe @15' GRAVEL with silt and sand (GW-GM), very dense, no recovery, sand with gravel in cuttings @20' GRAVEL with silt and sand (GW-GM), very dense, no recovery, sand with gravel in cuttings Total Depth: 20.5 feet No groundwater encountered Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped upon completion of drilling 112 124 7 2 B-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 S-1 MD, CR -2008 6 6 7 11 15 10 15 18 10 18 32 50/3" 50/5" 217' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T MM Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Soil Class.8-8-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. Ground Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 1AttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling, Inc.Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-3 Logged By Date Drilled 215 210 205 200 195 190 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * MM FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation See Figure 2 Exploration Location Map Proposed Fire Station 1 12482.001 Drilling Method 8"FeetHole Diameter MoistureDry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHSample No.BulkDriven SM GP SC GW-GM GW-GM SP @Surface: sand, gravel Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu) @2.5' SILTY SAND with gravel (SM), medium dense, brown Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan (Qof) @5' SANDY GRAVEL (GP), medium dense, grayish brown, slightly moist, fine sand, rounded gravels, with few mechanically fractured during sampling, cobble-sized slaty bedrock fragments @8' gravel, hard drilling CLAYEY SAND with gravel (SC), medium dense, reddish brown, moist, low to medium plasticity, 31% fines @15' GRAVEL with silt and sand (GW-GM), very dense, reddish brown, moist, fine, subangular, well graded @20' GRAVEL with silt and sand (GW-GM), very dense, reddish brown, moist, fine, subangular, well graded @25' SAND (SP), very dense, reddish brown, moist, fine to medium, subangular, trace silt 136 122 108 115 3 7 4 4 B-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 S-1 -200 SA 19 12 9 13 20 27 32 32 18 30 47 50/5" 50/5" 32 49 50/4" 217' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T MM Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Soil Class.8-8-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. Ground Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 2AttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling, Inc.Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-4 Logged By Date Drilled 215 210 205 200 195 190 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * MM FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation See Figure 2 Exploration Location Map Proposed Fire Station 1 12482.001 Drilling Method 8"FeetHole Diameter MoistureDry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHSample No.BulkDriven GW-GM CL CL SP CL @30' GRAVEL with silt and sand (GW-GM), very dense, brown, no recovery @35' CLAY (CL), very stiff, orange brown, moist, low to medium plasticity @40' CLAY (CL), stiff, orange brown, moist, low to medium plasticity, with some gravel, 81% fines @45' SAND (SP), very dense, light brown, moist, fine grained @50' CLAY (CL), very stiff, orange brown, moist, low plasticity Total Depth: 51.5 feet No groundwater encountered Caved at 30' Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped upon completion of drilling 105 119 21 11 R-6 S-2 R-7 S-3 R-8 -200, AL 50/2" 11 18 10 5 10 14 11 14 50/5" 20 24 23 217' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T MM Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Soil Class.8-8-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. Ground Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 2 of 2AttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling, Inc.Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-4 Logged By Date Drilled 185 180 175 170 165 160 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * MM FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation See Figure 2 Exploration Location Map Proposed Fire Station 1 12482.001 Drilling Method 8"FeetHole Diameter MoistureDry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHSample No.BulkDriven SP GP GP GW-GM GW-GM @Surface: 3.5 inches Asphalt Concrete Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu) @2.5' SAND with gravel (SP), dense, light orange brown, moist, fine to medium, subangular, 4% fines @5' SANDY GRAVEL (GP), dense, grayish orange brown, moist, fine to medium, subangular slaty rock fragments @6' gravel, hard drilling, abundant mechanically fractured gravel, small cobble-sized slaty rock fragments Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan (Qof) @10' SANDY GRAVEL with cobbles (GP), dense, orange brown, moist, abundant mechanically fractured rock fragments @15' GRAVEL with silt and sand (GW-GM), very dense, reddish brown, moist, fine to medium, subangular, no recovery @20' GRAVEL with silt and sand (GW-GM), very dense, reddish brown, moist, fine to medium, subangular, no recovery Total Depth: 20 feet No groundwater encountered Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped upon completion of drilling 127 119 121 3 1 3 B-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 S-1 -20011 29 30 26 36 44 21 50/4" 50/3" 50/1" 217' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T MM Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Soil Class.8-8-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. Ground Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 1AttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling, Inc.Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-5 Logged By Date Drilled 215 210 205 200 195 190 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * MM FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation See Figure 2 Exploration Location Map Proposed Fire Station 1 12482.001 Drilling Method 8"FeetHole Diameter MoistureDry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHSample No.BulkDriven SC SC SP SP @Surface: 6 inches Asphalt Concrete Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu) @2.5 CLAYEY SAND (SC), stiff, brown, moist, fine, low plasticity, 43% fines Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan (Qof) @ 5' No Recovery @ 6.5' SAND with gravel (SP), dense, light brown, slightly moist, fine, subangular Total Depth: 8' No groundwater encountered Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped upon completion of drilling 117 12 B-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 -200, AL3 4 11 50/5" 17 24 29 216' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T MM Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Soil Class.8-8-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. Ground Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 1AttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling, Inc.Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-6 Logged By Date Drilled 215 210 205 200 195 190 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * MM FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation See Figure 2 Exploration Location Map Proposed Fire Station 1 12482.001 Drilling Method 8"FeetHole Diameter MoistureDry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHSample No.BulkDriven SM SM SP @Surface: 3 inches Asphalt Concrete Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu) @2.5' SILTY SAND with gravel (SM), light brown, moist, fine, subangular Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan (Qof) @6' SAND with gravel (SP), dense, light brown, fine, subangular @7.5' SAND with gravel (SP), dense, light brown, fine to medium, subangular Total Depth: 9' No groundwater encountered Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped upon completion of drilling 100 10 B-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 27 35 42 18 24 38 216' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T MM Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Soil Class.8-8-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. Ground Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 1AttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling, Inc.Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-7 Logged By Date Drilled 215 210 205 200 195 190 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * MM FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation See Figure 2 Exploration Location Map Proposed Fire Station 1 12482.001 Drilling Method 8"FeetHole Diameter MoistureDry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHSample No.BulkDriven Results of Well Permeameter, from USBR 7300-89 Method. Leighton Project:12482 Initial estimated Depth to Water Surface (in.):127 Exploration #/Location:LB-4 Average depth of water in well, "h" (in.):41 Depth Boring drilled to (ft):50 approx. h/r: 9.1 Tested by:JK Tu (Fig. 8) (ft): 49.4 USCS Soil Type in test zone:Tu>3h?: yes, OK Weather (start to finish):Cloudy Liquid Used/pH:H2O Measured boring diameter:9 in.4.5 in. Well Radius Cross-sectional area for vol calcs (in.^2):63.6 Approx Depth to GW below GS:60 ft Well Prep:Caved to 30', Backfilled to 15', Added Bentonite, Gravel to 14' ft in.Total (in.) Depth to Bot of well (or top of soil over Bentonite)14. ft 0. in.168 Pilot Tube stickup (+ is above ground)0. ft 10. in.10 Depth to top of sand outside of casing from top of pilot tube Depth to top of float assembly from top of pilot tube 9. ft 4. in.112 102 Depth below GS (in.) Float Assembly ID DHVA Float assembly Extension length (in.)34 Flow Meter: Meter ID SN18003236 Meter Colo Black Meter UnitsGallons DL ID 1 0.05 gallons/pulse Field Data Calculations Comments Start Date Start time:Total Gallons ft in. - 8/8/19 10:30 593.5 10 8.5 6.3E+07 118.5 49.5 49.5 25 -3147 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 8/8/19 10:55 595.2 10 7.4 25 6.3E+07 117.4 50.6 1.1 50 393 -70 323 13 775 0.9 0.10 0.48 8/8/19 11:26 595.4 10 9.9 31 6.3E+07 119.9 48.1 -2.5 49 46 159 205 7 397 0.9 0.05 0.25 8/8/19 11:53 595.4 10 11.8 27 6.3E+07 121.8 46.2 -1.9 47 0 121 121 4 268 0.921 0.04 0.18 8/8/19 12:24 595.4 11 2.1 31 6.3E+07 124.1 43.9 -2.3 45 0 146 146 5 283 0.9 0.05 0.20 8/8/19 12:50 595.45 11 3.2 26 6.3E+07 125.2 42.8 -1.1 43 12 70 81 3 188 0.9 0.03 0.13 8/8/19 13:15 595.45 11 4.3 25 6.3E+07 126.3 41.7 -1.1 42 0 70 70 3 168 0.9 0.03 0.12 8/8/19 13:45 595.45 11 5.9 30 6.3E+07 127.9 40.1 -1.6 41 0 102 102 3 203 0.9 0.04 0.15 8/8/19 14:15 595.54 11 6.2 30 6.3E+07 128.2 39.8 -0.3 40 21 19 40 1 80 0.9 0.01 0.06 8/8/19 14:30 595.7 11 6.1 15 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0.1 40 37 -6 31 2 122 0.9 0.02 0.09 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 128.1 39.9 0 40 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! template updated: 8/14/19 Flow (in^3/ min) q, Flow (in^3/ hr) V (Fig 9) K20, Coef. Of Perme- ability at 20 deg C (in./hr) Infiltration Rate [flow/surf area] (in./hr) (FS=1)from supply from h Vol Change (in.^3)Depth to WL in well (in.) h, Height of Water in Well (in.) h (in.)Avg. hΔt (min) Total Elapsed Time (min.) Water Temp (deg F) Date Time Data from Flow Meter Depth to WL in Boring (measured from top of pilot tube) Reading (cu-ft or gal) Interval Pulse Count Results of Well Permeameter, from USBR 7300-89 Method. Leighton Project:12482 Initial estimated Depth to Water Surface (in.):212 Exploration #/Location:LB-5 Average depth of water in well, "h" (in.):34 Depth Boring drilled to (ft):30 approx. h/r: 6.9 Tested by:JK Tu (Fig. 8) (ft): 42.4 USCS Soil Type in test zone:Tu>3h?: yes, OK Weather (start to finish):Sunny Liquid Used/pH: Measured boring diameter:10 in.5 in. Well Radius Cross-sectional area for vol calcs (in.^2):78.5 Approx Depth to GW below GS:60 ft Well Prep:Drilled to 30', Caved to 25', Backfilled to 21', Added Bentonite, Gravel to 20.5' ft in.Total (in.) Depth to Bot of well (or top of soil over Bentonite)20. ft 6. in.246 Pilot Tube stickup (+ is above ground)0. ft 4. in.4 Depth to top of sand outside of casing from top of pilot tube Depth to top of float assembly from top of pilot tube 15. ft 8. in.188 184 Depth below GS (in.) Float Assembly ID E Float assembly Extension length (in.)34 Flow Meter: Meter ID SN18003242 Meter Colo Black Meter UnitsGallons DL ID 2 0.05 gallons/pulse Field Data Calculations Comments Start Date Start time:Total Gallons ft in. - 8/8/19 12:03 350.4 18 0.6 6.3E+07 212.6 33.4 33.4 17 -2622 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 8/8/19 12:26 364.2 17 11.2 23 6.3E+07 211.2 34.8 1.4 34 3188 -110 3078 134 8029 0.9 1.71 6.44 8/8/19 12:51 375.8 17 11.6 25 6.3E+07 211.6 34.4 -0.4 35 2680 31 2711 108 6506 0.9 1.43 5.15 8/8/19 13:16 385.4 18 1.3 25 6.3E+07 213.3 32.7 -1.7 34 2218 133 2351 94 5643 0.921 1.35 4.59 8/8/19 13:46 398.5 18 1.4 30 6.3E+07 213.4 32.6 -0.1 33 3026 8 3034 101 6068 0.9 1.44 5.07 8/8/19 14:16 416.8 18 1.2 30 6.3E+07 213.2 32.8 0.2 33 4227 -16 4212 140 8423 0.9 1.97 7.02 8/8/19 14:45 437.2 17 11.5 29 6.3E+07 211.5 34.5 1.7 34 4712 -133 4579 158 9474 0.9 2.04 7.69 8/8/19 15:00 448.6 17 10.8 15 6.3E+07 210.8 35.2 0.7 35 2633 -55 2578 172 10314 0.9 2.17 8.10 8/8/19 15:15 459.3 17 10.7 15 6.3E+07 210.7 35.3 0.1 35 2472 -8 2464 164 9855 0.9 2.07 7.66 8/8/19 15:30 468.9 17 11.4 15 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 -0.7 35 2218 55 2273 152 9090 0.9 1.98 7.12 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! 6.3E+07 211.4 34.6 0 35 0 ###### ##### ####### 0.9 #VALUE!#VALUE! template updated: 8/14/19 Flow (in^3/ min) q, Flow (in^3/ hr) V (Fig 9) K20, Coef. Of Perme- ability at 20 deg C (in./hr) Infiltration Rate [flow/surf area] (in./hr) (FS=1) Reading (cu-ft or gal) Interval Pulse Count from supply from h Vol Change (in.^3)Depth to WL in well (in.) h, Height of Water in Well (in.) h (in.)Avg. hΔt (min) Total Elapsed Time (min.) Date Time Data from Flow Meter Depth to WL in Boring (measured from top of pilot tube) Water Temp (deg F) APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Leighton LB-1 2.5 3.2 110.5 LB-1 10.0 0.6 121.7 LB-1 15.0 6.5 120.8 LB-2 2.5 3.0 96.9 LB-3 2.5 7.0 112.4 LB-3 5.0 1.8 123.5 LB-4 5.0 2.6 136.5 LB-4 10.0 7.4 121.6 LB-4 15.0 3.5 107.9 LB-4 20.0 3.5 114.9 LB-4 40.0 21.1 105.4 LB-4 50.0 11.5 118.7 LB-5 2.5 3.0 126.6 LB-5 5.0 0.9 118.5 LB-5 10.0 3.3 120.5 LB-6 2.5 11.7 116.9 LB-7 6.0 10.5 99.7 Class- ification Water Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Maximum Size (mm) %<#200 Sieve Satur- ation (%) Void RatioDepth Summary of Laboratory Results Sheet 1 of 1 Borehole Figure No.1 Project Name: Project Number: Date: WLC Orange FS1 12482.001 9/6/2019 2:38:21 PM US_LAB_SUMMARY 12482.01 BORING LOGS DRAFT.GPJ ROCKLOG2012.GDT 9/6/19 MX LB-3, B-1 @ 0-5.xls Tested By:O. Figueroa Date:09/05/19 Input By:G. Bathala Date:09/06/19 Depth (ft.):0-5 X Moist Rammer Weight (lb.) =10.0 Dry #3/4 Height of Drop (in.) =18.0 X #3/8 16.5 #4 0.03320 1 2 3 4 5 6 3852 3945 3995 3901 1817 1817 1817 1817 2035 2128 2178 2084 395.3 442.6 435.5 459.9 385.1 420.8 405.4 419.4 62.3 39.2 39.4 39.8 3.16 5.71 8.22 10.67 135.1 141.3 144.6 138.4 131.0 133.7 133.6 125.0 134.4 7.1 139.0 6.1 Procedure A Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five) May be used if +#4 is 20% or less X Procedure B Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five) Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is 20% or less Procedure C Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six) Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in. is <30% Particle-Size Distribution: GR:SA:FI Atterberg Limits: LL,PL,PI Dry Density (pcf) Mechanical Ram Net Weight of Soil (g) Wet Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%) Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g) Weight of Container (g) Manual Ram Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g) Compaction Method Optimum Moisture Content (%) Corrected Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Corrected Dry Density (pcf) Project Name: Project No.: Boring No.: Sample No.: Mold Volume (ft³) TEST NO. Note: Corrected dry density calculation assumes specific gravity of 2.70 and moisture content of 1.0% for oversize particles Scalp Fraction (%)Preparation Method: MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST ASTM D 1557 Olive brown silty, clayey sand with gravel (SC-SM)g Weight of Mold (g) WLC/Orange FS 1 LB-3 Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g) B-1 Soil Identification: 12482.001 120.0 125.0 130.0 135.0 140.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%) SP. GR. = 2.65 SP. GR. = 2.70 SP. GR. = 2.75 D D D \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \\ .>: '\ .\ K �/ \ :\ / � ---...... \ \ \ [/ �' \ \ \ / '\ \ \ ./� \\ \ \ - \ \ \ \ ' \ \\ \ \I\ \ \\ �\ \ \ \\ \.. '� \ \ - \ \\ \ \ I\ \\ �\ \ \ '\ '� \ \ Passing #200 LB-3 thru LB-6.xls LB-3 LB-4 LB-4 LB-5 LB-6 R-1 R-3 R-7 R-1 R-1 2.5 10.0 40.0 2.5 2.5 Ring Ring Ring Ring Ring 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 769.70 1024.80 627.10 867.90 699.50 108.70 99.80 108.40 107.80 108.80 661.00 925.00 518.70 760.10 590.70 A A A A A 584.00 740.30 205.10 834.20 442.40 108.70 99.80 108.40 107.80 108.80 475.30 640.50 96.70 726.40 333.60 28.1 30.8 81.4 4.4 43.5 71.9 69.2 18.6 95.6 56.5 Project Name:WLC/Orange FS 1 Project No.:12482.001 Client Name: Tested By:S. Felter Date:08/19/19 Moisture Correction Dry Weight of Sample + Cont. (g) Weight of Container (g) Container No.: Brown clayey sand (SC) Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g) Sample Dry Weight Determination Brown silty sand with gravel (SM)g Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g) PERCENT PASSING No. 200 SIEVE ASTM D 1140 Weight of Sample + Container (g) Method (A or B) Weight of Container (g) Weight of Dry Sample (g) Brown clayey sand with gravel (SC)g Brown lean clay with sand (CL)s Brown poorly- graded sand with gravel (SP)g Boring No. Sample No. Soil Identification Depth (ft.) Sample Type % Passing No. 200 Sieve % Retained No. 200 Sieve After Wash Dry Weight of Sample (g) Weight of Container (g) Moisture Content (%) � Leighton Project Name:Tested By:S. Felter Date:08/19/19 Project No.:12482.001 Checked By:G. Bathala Date:09/06/19 Boring No.:LB-4 Depth (feet):15.0 Sample No.:R-4 Soil Identification:Brown well-graded gravel with silt and sand (GW-GM)s A-15 0.0 893.6 0.0 107.2 1.0 786.4 0.0 A-15 842.9 107.2 735.7 (in.)(mm.) 1 1/2"37.5 1"25.0 3/4"19.0 1/2"12.5 3/8"9.5 #4 4.75 #8 2.36 #16 1.18 #30 0.600 #50 0.300 #100 0.150 #200 0.075 GRAVEL:58 % SAND:35 % FINES:7 % GROUP SYMBOL:(GW-GM)s 35.71 2.06 Remarks: PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION) ASTM D 6913 Container No.: WLC/Orange FS 1 of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS Dry Wt. of Soil (g) Cumulative Weight Dry Soil Retained (g) Moisture Content (%) Wt. of Dry Soil + Container (g) Wt. of Container (g) Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g) Wt. of Container (g) Moisture Content of Total Air - Dry Soil Wt. of Container No._____ (g) Wt. of Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g) Cu = D60/D10 = U. S. Sieve Size Percent Passing (%) Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (g) After Wet Sieve Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) = 112.3 324.1 453.6 68.1 704.4 15.4 Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g) Container No. 735.1 10.4 PAN 6.5 723.1 8.0 58.8 42.3 22.1 30.3548.3 0.0 250.7 85.7 59.8 92.4 665.1 612.3 100.0 Sieve LB-4, R-4 @ 15.xls 58 :35 :7 R-4 Sep-19 Boring No.: Depth (feet):15.0 Soil Type : Project Name: PARTICLE - SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 6913 Soil Identification:Brown well-graded gravel with silt and sand (GW-GM)s (GW-GM)s GR:SA:FI : (%) WLC/Orange FS 1 Project No.:LB-4 Sample No.:12482.001 SAND SILT FINE HYDROMETER 3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER GRAVEL FINES FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT PARTICLE - SIZE (mm) " - <, " \ � \ \ I i\ \. \i\ "" "" -, ' <, ........... r-......._ ...... <, ................ --- r--e-_ -""""• Leighton Project Name:Tested By:S. Felter Date:08/20/19 Project No. :Input By:G. Bathala Date:09/06/19 Boring No.:Checked By:G. Bathala Sample No.:Depth (ft.) Soil Identification: 1 2 1 2 3 4 34 27 18 10.19 10.14 20.91 20.14 21.78 9.17 9.16 16.08 15.40 16.37 1.09 1.10 1.03 1.10 1.12 12.62 12.16 32.09 33.15 35.48 34 12 22 CL PI at "A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) 10.22 One - Point Liquid Limit Calculation LL =Wn(N/25) PROCEDURES USED Wet Preparation Multipoint - Wet X Dry Preparation Multipoint - Dry X Procedure A Multipoint Test Procedure B One-point Test ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D 4318 WLC/Orange FS 1 12482.001 LB-4 R-7 40.0 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) Wt. of Container (g) Moisture Content (%) [Wn] Brown lean clay with sand (CL)s TEST NO. Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Classification Number of Blows [N] Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Plasticity Index (PI) Liquid Limit (LL) 0.12 CL or OL ML or OL MH or OH For classification of fine- grained soils and fine- grained fraction of coarse- grained soils "A" Line 7 4 CH or OH CL- ML 31 32 33 34 35 36 10 100Moisture Content (%) Number of Blows 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 D D D D ······································································-�K······ I\ \ ................................................................................................ \ . \ r, \ \ ................................................................................................................... ··�······ 4rs \ \ \ ................................................................................................................... ·······················\····· \ l'o \ I\ Project Name:Tested By:S. Felter Date:08/20/19 Project No. :Input By:G. Bathala Date:09/06/19 Boring No.:Checked By:G. Bathala Sample No.:Depth (ft.) Soil Identification: 1 2 1 2 3 4 30 22 17 10.14 10.15 22.28 22.14 21.95 9.26 9.25 18.19 17.92 17.65 1.11 1.11 1.12 1.14 1.10 10.80 11.06 23.96 25.15 25.98 25 11 14 CL PI at "A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) 3.65 One - Point Liquid Limit Calculation LL =Wn(N/25) PROCEDURES USED Wet Preparation Multipoint - Wet X Dry Preparation Multipoint - Dry X Procedure A Multipoint Test Procedure B One-point Test ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D 4318 WLC/Orange FS 1 12482.001 LB-6 R-1 2.5 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) Wt. of Container (g) Moisture Content (%) [Wn] Brown clayey sand (SC) TEST NO. Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Classification Number of Blows [N] Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Plasticity Index (PI) Liquid Limit (LL) 0.12 CL or OL ML or OL MH or OH For classification of fine- grained soils and fine- grained fraction of coarse- grained soils "A" Line 7 4 CH or OH CL- ML 23 24 25 26 27 10 100Moisture Content (%) Number of Blows 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 D D D D \ ·� I\ ........................................... ·······I\ .... \ \0 -, I\ \ ................................................................................................................. \I\ ..... \ \ \ •"-, \ Tested By:S. Felter Date:09/05/19 Checked By:G. Bathala Date:09/06/19 Depth (ft.): Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) Wt. of Container No. (g) Dry Wt. of Soil (g) Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve Percent Passing # 4 SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h 1341 Expansion Index (EI meas) =((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 1 1.0 0.4680 09/06/19 7:44 1.0 1417 0.4680 09/06/19 6:28 1.0 Add Distilled Water to the Specimen 09/05/19 14:02 1.0 355 0.4680 10 09/05/19 7:57 1.0 0 0.4670 0.467009/05/19 8:07 Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas]48.8 77.8 Date Time Pressure (psi)Elapsed Time (min.) Dial Readings (in.) Total Porosity 0.307 0.307 Pore Volume (cc) 63.5 63.7 Dry Density (pcf)116.9 116.8 Void Ratio 0.443 0.444 Moisture Content (%)8.00 12.79 Wet Density (pcf)126.2 131.7 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)780.30 579.04 Wt. of Container (g)0.00 191.60 Container No.O O Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)842.70 628.58 Wt. of Mold (g)191.60 0.00 Specific Gravity (Assumed)2.70 2.70 Specimen Height (in.)1.0000 1.0010 Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (g)610.00 436.98 Specimen Diameter (in.)4.01 4.01 100.00 MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test 1000.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0-5 Sample No.:B-1 Soil Identification:Brown poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM) Project No.:12482.001 Boring No.: EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS ASTM D 4829 Project Name: LB-1 WLC/Orange FS 1 Project Name:WLC/Orange FS 1 Tested By :GEB/GB Date:09/04/19 Project No. :12482.001 Input By:G. Bathala Date:09/06/19 Boring No.LB-3 Sample No.B-1 Sample Depth (ft)0-5 130.22 126.87 39.58 3.84 100.10 304 12 860 10:50/11:35 45 20.7428 20.7384 0.0044 181.06 188 ml of Extract For Titration (B)30 ml of AgNO3 Soln. Used in Titration (C)2.0 PPM of Chloride (C -0.2) * 100 * 30 / B 180 PPM of Chloride, Dry Wt. Basis 187 7.15 20.1 TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT CHLORIDE CONTENT and pH of SOILS SULFATE CONTENT, DOT California Test 417, Part II Soil Identification: Temperature °C pH Value pH TEST, DOT California Test 643 Olive brown (SC-SM)g Wt. of Crucible + Residue (g) Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g) Weight of Container (g) Duration of Combustion (min) Moisture Content (%) Beaker No. Crucible No. Furnace Temperature (°C) Time In / Time Out Weight of Soaked Soil (g) PPM of Sulfate (A) x 41150 Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g) Wt. of Residue (g) (A) CHLORIDE CONTENT, DOT California Test 422 Wt. of Crucible (g) PPM of Sulfate, Dry Weight Basis Project Name: Tested By : Date: Project No. : Input By: G. Bathala Date: Boring No.: Depth (ft.) : Sample No. : Soil Identification:* *California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 US Standard Sieve before resistivity testing. Therefore, this test method may not be representative for coarser materials. Wt. of Container (g)11.81 1900 3.84 130.22 Moisture Content (%) (MCi) Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)Specimen No. 1 2 Water Added (ml) (Wa) 10 Adjusted Moisture Content (MC)Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 1900 1.000 Chloride Content (ohm-cm) 35.74 Moisture Content Sulfate Content 5 Min. Resistivity DOT CA Test 643DOT CA Test 417 Part II DOT CA Test 422 (%) (ppm) (ppm) DOT CA Test 643 4 20 30 40 130.203160027.76 1600 1570 23.4 188 187 7.15 20.1 SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST DOT CA TEST 643 Temp. (°C)pH Soil pH 1600 1600 126.87 39.58 MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100 WLC/Orange FS 1 09/06/19 09/06/19 0-5 12482.001 LB-3 O. Figueroa B-1 Container No. Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt) Box Constant18001800 Olive brown (SC-SM)g Resistance Reading (ohm) 19.79 Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm) 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm)Moisture Content (%) Leighton I I ... � \ \ \ \ \ \ ' - \ r: \ I ' I I \ I \ I \ I 1 v \ I \ / \ , / I\ / \ J \ / \ v \ / \ v I\ / "- _/ ... !\.. i....- <, / <, � APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS Leighton 8/20/2019 U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://seismicmaps.org 1/2 Latitude, Longitude: 33.7873345, -117.84107526 Date 8/20/2019, 11:05:16 AM Design Code Reference Document ASCE7-10 Risk Category II Site Class D - Stiff Soil Type Value Description SS 1.5 MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period) S1 0.549 MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period) SMS 1.5 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SM1 0.823 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SDS 1 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA SD1 0.549 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA Type Value Description SDC D Seismic design category Fa 1 Site amplification factor at 0.2 second Fv 1.5 Site amplification factor at 1.0 second PGA 0.515 MCEG peak ground acceleration FPGA 1 Site amplification factor at PGA PGAM 0.515 Site modified peak ground acceleration TL 8 Long-period transition period in seconds SsRT 1.504 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second) SsUH 1.443 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration SsD 1.5 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second) S1RT 0.549 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second) S1UH 0.511 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration. S1D 0.6 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second) PGAd 0.515 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration) CRS 1.042 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods CR1 1.073 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s -"GINEi,;;, .,, l i :, ?, � g CALIFORNIA OSHPD Selman Chevrolet to -I c (/') - Map data ©2019 Google z -I c so ,-+ � co Starbucks 9 .... Walgreenst+' (./) E Century Ave E Lael Dr C., Body Therapy Center f 'hapman Ave I t Cl) n 0) 3 CT -, c: cc (D ()) ,-+ CORE Physical Therapy '° q Pitcher Park E Chapman Ave Go gle 8/20/2019 U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://seismicmaps.org 2/2 DISCLAIMER While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, SEAOC /OSHPD and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in this web application should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. SEAOC / OSHPD do not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the seismic data provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the search results of this webstie. MCER Response Spectrum Sa(g) 0 5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Period, T (sec)Sa(g)Design Response Spectrum Sa(g) 0 5 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Period, T (sec)Sa(g) 8/20/2019 Unified Hazard Tool https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/1/5 Uni ed Hazard Tool Input U.S. Geological Survey - Earthquake Hazards Program Please do not use this tool to obtain ground motion parameter values for the design code reference documents covered by the U.S. Seismic Design Maps web tools (e.g., the International Building Code and the ASCE 7 or 41 Standard). The values returned by the two applications are not identical. Edition Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2008 (v3.3. Latitude Decimal degrees 33.7873345 Longitude Decimal degrees, negative values for western longitudes -117.84107526 Site Class 259 m/s (Site class D) Spectral Period Peak Ground Acceleration Time Horizon Return period in years 2475 8/20/2019 Unified Hazard Tool https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/2/5 Hazard Curve View Raw Data Hazard Curves Time Horizon 2475 years Peak Ground Acceleration 0.10 Second Spectral Acceleration 0.20 Second Spectral Acceleration 0.30 Second Spectral Acceleration 0.50 Second Spectral Acceleration 0.75 Second Spectral Acceleration 1.00 Second Spectral Acceleration 2.00 Second Spectral Acceleration 3.00 Second Spectral Acceleration 1e-2 1e-1 1e+0 Ground Motion (g) 1e-13 1e-12 1e-11 1e-10 1e-9 1e-8 1e-7 1e-6 1e-5 1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e+0 Annual Frequency of ExceedenceUniform Hazard Response Spectrum 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Spectral Period (s) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Ground Motion (g)Spectral Period (s): PGA Ground Motion (g): 0.5852 Component Curves for Peak Ground Acceleration Time Horizon 2475 years Grid Interface Fault 1e-2 1e-1 1e+0 Ground Motion (g) 1e-12 1e-11 1e-10 1e-9 1e-8 1e-7 1e-6 1e-5 1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e+0 Annual Frequency of Exceedence-+- -+- 8/20/2019 Unified Hazard Tool https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/3/5 Deaggregation Component Total ε = (-∞ .. -2.5) ε = [-2.5 .. -2) ε = [-2 .. -1.5) ε = [-1.5 .. -1) ε = [-1 .. -0.5) ε = [-0.5 .. 0) ε = [0 .. 0.5) ε = [0.5 .. 1) ε = [1 .. 1.5) ε = [1.5 .. 2) ε = [2 .. 2.5) ε = [2.5 .. +∞) 5 15 25 35 Closest Distance, rRup (km) 45 55 65 7598.587.5M agnitude (M w )76.565.554.55% Contribution to Hazard1015205 15 25 35 45 Closest Distance, rRup (km) 55 65 75 98.587.576.5M agnitud e (M w )65.554.5• • • D D D D D • • • • • •• •• . • • ••• •• •• . • • II ••••. • . • ••• 8/20/2019 Unified Hazard Tool https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/4/5 Summary statistics for, Deaggregation: Total Deaggregation targets Return period:2475 yrs Exceedance rate:0.0004040404 yr⁻¹ PGA ground motion:0.58520247 g Recovered targets Return period:3014.5434 yrs Exceedance rate:0.0003317252 yr⁻¹ Totals Binned:100 % Residual:0 % Trace:0.05 % Mean (over all sources) m:6.59 r:17.19 km ε₀:1.72 σ Mode (largest m-r bin) m:6.9 r:12.83 km ε₀:1.53 σ Contribution:11.76 % Mode (largest m-r-ε₀ bin) m:6.91 r:14.52 km ε₀:1.68 σ Contribution:5.48 % Discretization r:min = 0.0, max = 1000.0, Δ = 20.0 km m:min = 4.4, max = 9.4, Δ = 0.2 ε:min = -3.0, max = 3.0, Δ = 0.5 σ Epsilon keys ε0:[-∞ .. -2.5) ε1:[-2.5 .. -2.0) ε2:[-2.0 .. -1.5) ε3:[-1.5 .. -1.0) ε4:[-1.0 .. -0.5) ε5:[-0.5 .. 0.0) ε6:[0.0 .. 0.5) ε7:[0.5 .. 1.0) ε8:[1.0 .. 1.5) ε9:[1.5 .. 2.0) ε10:[2.0 .. 2.5) ε11:[2.5 .. +∞] 8/20/2019 Unified Hazard Tool https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/5/5 Deaggregation Contributors Source Set Source Type r m ε0 lon lat az % bFault.ch Fault 20.70 San Joaquin Hills 11.07 6.98 1.32 117.823°W 33.688°N 171.39 4.92 Puente Hills (Coyote Hills)12.13 6.71 1.50 117.921°W 33.871°N 321.86 3.90 Puente Hills 16.48 7.06 1.56 117.867°W 33.927°N 351.14 1.89 Chino - alt 1 17.21 6.54 2.03 117.648°W 33.907°N 53.14 1.67 Chino - alt 2 20.12 6.70 1.97 117.629°W 33.886°N 60.81 1.43 bFault.gr Fault 14.58 San Joaquin Hills 11.19 6.74 1.43 117.823°W 33.688°N 171.39 4.58 Puente Hills (Coyote Hills)12.13 6.61 1.55 117.921°W 33.871°N 321.86 2.68 Puente Hills 18.62 6.81 1.84 117.867°W 33.927°N 351.14 1.11 Chino - alt 1 17.21 6.49 2.04 117.648°W 33.907°N 53.14 1.01 CAmap.21.ch.in (opt)Grid 13.08 PointSourceFinite: -117.841, 33.828 6.75 5.76 1.28 117.841°W 33.828°N 0.00 1.08 PointSourceFinite: -117.841, 33.819 6.21 5.73 1.21 117.841°W 33.819°N 0.00 1.04 PointSourceFinite: -117.841, 33.837 7.32 5.79 1.35 117.841°W 33.837°N 0.00 1.03 CAmap.24.ch.in (opt)Grid 13.04 PointSourceFinite: -117.841, 33.828 6.75 5.76 1.28 117.841°W 33.828°N 0.00 1.08 PointSourceFinite: -117.841, 33.819 6.21 5.73 1.21 117.841°W 33.819°N 0.00 1.04 PointSourceFinite: -117.841, 33.837 7.32 5.79 1.35 117.841°W 33.837°N 0.00 1.03 aFault_aPriori_D2.1 Fault 12.03 Elsinore : W 13.90 6.96 1.73 117.792°W 33.907°N 18.74 3.63 Elsinore : GI 23.65 6.82 2.13 117.590°W 33.829°N 78.66 2.62 Elsinore : GI+T 23.65 7.26 1.96 117.590°W 33.829°N 78.66 1.85 Elsinore : GI+T+J+CM 23.65 7.74 1.74 117.590°W 33.829°N 78.66 1.02 aFault_MoBal Fault 11.61 Elsinore : W 13.90 6.94 1.74 117.792°W 33.907°N 18.74 5.31 Elsinore : GI 23.65 6.79 2.14 117.590°W 33.829°N 78.66 1.53 CAmap.21.gr.in (opt)Grid 6.38 CAmap.24.gr.in (opt)Grid 6.27 aFault_unseg Fault 2.28 Elsinore 15.43 7.48 1.54 117.792°W 33.907°N 18.74 2.14 Determination of Site Class and Estimation of Shear Wave Velocity Project: 12482.001 di,Field Blow Counts, Ni Average Ni di / Ni Depth Layer Corrected for Cs and sampler type Ni Hammer (ft)Thick (ft)Blows per foot (bpf)(bpf) Corr: LB-4 1.3 3 4 14 14 18 0.22 5 3.5 30 30 39 0.09 10 5 32 32 42 0.12 15 5 52 52 68 0.07 20 5 52 52 68 0.07 25 5 90 90 100 0.05 30 5 52 52 68 0.07 35 5 33 33 43 0.12 40 5 15 15 20 0.26 45 5 90 90 100 0.05 50 7.5 30 30 39 0.19 60 10 40 Assumed 40 52 0.19 70 10 40 40 52 0.19 80 15 40 40 52 0.29 100 10 40 40 52 0.19 Summation 100 2.18 Navg = Sum(di) / Sum(di / Ni) = 46 Extract of ASCE 7-10 Table 20.3-1 Site Classification (2016 CBC 1613A.3.2): Site Class Soil Profile Avg. N upper 100' Vs30 (ft/sec) Vs30 (m/s) Site Avg Interpolated Name from to from to from to N vs30 (ft/s) A Hard Rock - 5000 10000 1524 3048 B Rock - 2500 5000 762 1524 C VD soil & soft rock 50.001 100 1200 2500 366 762 D Stiff Soil 15 50 600 1200 183 366 46 1128 E Soft Soil 0 14.999 0 600 0 183 F--00 Site class, Table 20.3-1:D I I I Liquefaction Susceptibility Analysis: SPT Method Based on Youd and Idriss (2001), Martin and Lew (1999). Project: 12482 Leighton Project No.: Proposed Fire Station 1 General Boring Information: Existing Design Design Ground General Parameters: Boring GW GW Fill Height Surface amax = 0.51g MCE No. Depth (ft) Depth (ft) (ft) Elev (ft)MW = 6.9 LB-1 100 100 0 211 111 MSF eq: 1 (Idriss, 2001) LB-3 100 100 0 211 111 MSF = 1.24 LB-4 100 100 0 211 111 Hammer Efficiency =83 % LB-5 100 100 0 211 111 CE = 1.38 0 CB = 1 0 CS(SPT) = 1.2 0 CS(ring) = 1 0 Rod Stickup (feet) =3 0 Ring sample correction =0.65 0 Leighton Summary of Liquefaction Susceptibility Analysis: SPT MethodLiquefaction Method: Youd and Idriss (2001). Seismic Settlement Method: Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) and Martin and Lew (1999). Project: 12482Project No.: Proposed Fire Station 1LeightonBoring No.Approx. Layer DepthSPT DepthApprox Layer Thick- nessPlasticity ("n"=non susc. to liq.)Estimated Fines ConttNm or B Sampler Type (enter 2 if mod CA Ring)CsNm (corrected for Cs and ring->SPT)Exist vo'(N1)60(N1)60CSCRR7.5Design vo' CSR7.5CSRMLiquefaction Factor of Safety(N1)60CS (for Settle-ment)Dry Sand Strain (%) (Tok/ Seed 87)Sat Sand Strain (%) (Tok/ Seed 87)Seismic Sett. of LayerCummulative Seismic Settlement(ft)(ft)(ft)(%) (pcf)(blows/ft)(blows/ft) (psf) (psf) (blows/ft) (%) (%) (in.) (in.)LB-10 to 43430 115 31 21 20.2 345 35.5 45.7 >Range 345 0.33 0.27NonLiq45.7 0.01 0.00 0.0LB-14 to 85430 125 43 21 28.0 585 49.3 61.6 >Range 585 0.33 0.26NonLiq61.6 0.01 0.00 0.0LB-18 to 1310510 125 80 21 52.0 1210 80.3 82.9 >Range 1210 0.32 0.26NonLiq82.9 0.01 0.00 0.0LB-113 to 1815510 125 80 21 52.0 1835 65.2 67.5 >Range 1835 0.32 0.26NonLiq67.5 0.01 0.01 0.0LB-118 to 2220510 125 80 11.2 96.0 2460 116.2 119.6 >Range 2460 0.32 0.26NonLiq119.6 0.01 0.00 0.0LB-30 to 43428 115 12 21 7.8 345 13.8 20.2 0.218 345 0.33 0.27NonLiq20.2 0.05 0.02 0.1LB-34 to 75328 125 26 21 16.9 585 29.8 38.5 >Range 585 0.33 0.26NonLiq38.5 0.03 0.01 0.0LB-37 to 9835 125 33 21 21.5 960 35.0 35.0 >Range 960 0.33 0.26NonLiq35.0 0.04 0.01 0.0LB-39 to 131045 125 50 21 32.5 1210 50.2 50.2 >Range 1210 0.32 0.26NonLiq50.2 0.01 0.00 0.0LB-313 to 1815510 120 80 21 52.0 1823 65.4 67.7 >Range 1822.5 0.32 0.26NonLiq67.7 0.01 0.01 0.0LB-318 to 2220510 120 80 11.2 96.0 2423 117.1 120.5 >Range 2422.5 0.32 0.26NonLiq120.5 0.01 0.00 0.0LB-40 to 43430 120 21 21 13.7 360 24.1 32.5 >Range 360 0.33 0.27NonLiq32.5 0.02 0.01 0.2LB-44 to 85410 130 47 21 30.6 610 53.9 55.9 >Range 610 0.33 0.26NonLiq55.9 0.01 0.00 0.2LB-48 to 1310531 125 50 21 32.5 1248 49.4 62.2 >Range 1247.5 0.32 0.26NonLiq62.2 0.01 0.01 0.2LB-413 to 181557 115 80 21 52.0 1848 65.0 65.7 >Range 1847.5 0.32 0.26NonLiq65.7 0.01 0.01 0.2LB-418 to 232057 115 80 21 52.0 2423 63.4 64.1 >Range 2422.5 0.32 0.26NonLiq64.1 0.01 0.01 0.2LB-423 to 282557 120 80 11.2 96.0 3010 105.1 106.1 >Range 3010 0.31 0.25NonLiq106.1 0.01 0.01 0.2LB-428 to 333057 120 80 21 52.0 3610 54.7 55.3 >Range 3610 0.31 0.25NonLiq55.3 0.01 0.01 0.1LB-433 to 3835580 125 28 11.2 33.6 4223 32.7 44.2 >Range 4222.5 0.29 0.24NonLiq44.2 0.02 0.01 0.1LB-438 to 4340580 125 24 21 15.6 4848 14.2 22.0 0.242 4847.5 0.28 0.23NonLiq22.0 0.15 0.09 0.1LB-443 to 4845510 125 80 11.2 96.0 5473 82.0 84.7 >Range 5472.5 0.27 0.22NonLiq84.7 0.01 0.01 0.0LB-448 to 5250580 130 47 21 30.6 6110 24.7 34.6 >Range 6110 0.25 0.21NonLiq34.6 0.06 0.03 0.0LB-50 to 4345 125 59 21 38.4 375 67.6 67.6 >Range 375 0.33 0.27NonLiq67.6 0.00 0.00 0.0LB-54 to 8545 120 80 21 52.0 620 91.7 91.7 >Range 620 0.33 0.26NonLiq91.7 0.00 0.00 0.0LB-58 to 131055 120 80 21 52.0 1220 80.0 80.0 >Range 1220 0.32 0.26NonLiq80.0 0.01 0.01 0.0LB-513 to 181558 125 80 21 52.0 1833 65.3 66.4 >Range 1832.5 0.32 0.26NonLiq66.4 0.01 0.01 0.0LB-518 to 222058 125 80 11.2 96.0 2458 116.3 118.1 >Range 2457.5 0.32 0.26NonLiq118.1 0.01 0.00 0.0LeightonPage 1 of 1 EQ Search WLC Orange FS1 ************************* * * * E Q S E A R C H * * * * Version 3.00 * * * ************************* ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE CATALOGS JOB NUMBER: 12482.001 DATE: 08-21-2019 JOB NAME: WLC Orange FS1 EARTHQUAKE-CATALOG-FILE NAME: ALLQUAKE.DAT MAGNITUDE RANGE: MINIMUM MAGNITUDE: 5.00 MAXIMUM MAGNITUDE: 9.00 SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.7873 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.8411 SEARCH DATES: START DATE: 1800 END DATE: 1999 SEARCH RADIUS: 60.0 mi 96.6 km ATTENUATION RELATION: 20) Sadigh et al. (1997) Horiz. - Soil UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0 ASSUMED SOURCE TYPE: DS [SS=Strike-slip, DS=Reverse-slip, BT=Blind-thrust] SCOND: 0 Depth Source: A Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: Campbell SHR: COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 0.0 Page 1 EQ Search WLC Orange FS1 ------------------------- EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS ------------------------- Page 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | TIME | | | SITE |SITE| APPROX. FILE| LAT. | LONG. | DATE | (UTC) |DEPTH|QUAKE| ACC. | MM | DISTANCE CODE| NORTH | WEST | | H M Sec| (km)| MAG.| g |INT.| mi [km] ----+-------+--------+----------+--------+-----+-----+-------+----+------------ DMG |33.6170|117.9670|03/11/1933| 154 7.8| 0.0| 6.30| 0.160 |VIII| 13.8( 22.2) MGI |33.8000|117.6000|04/22/1918|2115 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.057 | VI | 13.9( 22.3) DMG |33.6830|118.0500|03/11/1933| 658 3.0| 0.0| 5.50| 0.084 | VII| 14.0( 22.5) DMG |33.7500|118.0830|03/11/1933| 323 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.055 | VI | 14.1( 22.7) DMG |33.7500|118.0830|03/11/1933| 230 0.0| 0.0| 5.10| 0.060 | VI | 14.1( 22.7) DMG |33.7500|118.0830|03/11/1933| 910 0.0| 0.0| 5.10| 0.060 | VI | 14.1( 22.7) DMG |33.7500|118.0830|03/13/1933|131828.0| 0.0| 5.30| 0.071 | VI | 14.1( 22.7) DMG |33.7500|118.0830|03/11/1933| 2 9 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.055 | VI | 14.1( 22.7) DMG |33.7000|118.0670|03/11/1933| 85457.0| 0.0| 5.10| 0.059 | VI | 14.3( 23.0) DMG |33.7000|118.0670|03/11/1933| 51022.0| 0.0| 5.10| 0.059 | VI | 14.3( 23.0) DMG |33.6170|118.0170|03/14/1933|19 150.0| 0.0| 5.10| 0.054 | VI | 15.5( 24.9) DMG |33.7830|118.1330|10/02/1933| 91017.6| 0.0| 5.40| 0.063 | VI | 16.7( 27.0) DMG |33.5750|117.9830|03/11/1933| 518 4.0| 0.0| 5.20| 0.054 | VI | 16.8( 27.0) MGI |34.0000|118.0000|12/25/1903|1745 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.044 | VI | 17.3( 27.8) DMG |33.6990|117.5110|05/31/1938| 83455.4| 10.0| 5.50| 0.056 | VI | 19.9( 32.0) PAS |34.0610|118.0790|10/01/1987|144220.0| 9.5| 5.90| 0.065 | VI | 23.3( 37.5) DMG |33.7830|118.2500|11/14/1941| 84136.3| 0.0| 5.40| 0.042 | VI | 23.5( 37.8) MGI |34.0000|117.5000|12/16/1858|10 0 0.0| 0.0| 7.00| 0.141 |VIII| 24.4( 39.3) PAS |34.0730|118.0980|10/04/1987|105938.2| 8.2| 5.30| 0.036 | V | 24.6( 39.6) DMG |33.8500|118.2670|03/11/1933|1425 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.027 | V | 24.8( 39.9) GSP |34.1400|117.7000|02/28/1990|234336.6| 5.0| 5.20| 0.031 | V | 25.7( 41.3) DMG |33.7000|117.4000|05/13/1910| 620 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.026 | V | 26.0( 41.9) DMG |33.7000|117.4000|05/15/1910|1547 0.0| 0.0| 6.00| 0.062 | VI | 26.0( 41.9) DMG |33.7000|117.4000|04/11/1910| 757 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.026 | V | 26.0( 41.9) MGI |34.1000|118.1000|07/11/1855| 415 0.0| 0.0| 6.30| 0.079 | VII| 26.2( 42.1) T-A |34.0000|118.2500|01/10/1856| 0 0 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.024 | IV | 27.7( 44.5) T-A |34.0000|118.2500|03/26/1860| 0 0 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.024 | IV | 27.7( 44.5) T-A |34.0000|118.2500|09/23/1827| 0 0 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.024 | IV | 27.7( 44.5) DMG |34.2000|117.9000|08/28/1889| 215 0.0| 0.0| 5.50| 0.035 | V | 28.7( 46.2) MGI |34.0000|118.3000|09/03/1905| 540 0.0| 0.0| 5.30| 0.028 | V | 30.1( 48.5) MGI |34.0800|118.2600|07/16/1920|18 8 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.020 | IV | 31.4( 50.5) GSP |34.2620|118.0020|06/28/1991|144354.5| 11.0| 5.40| 0.025 | V | 34.0( 54.8) DMG |34.0000|117.2500|07/23/1923| 73026.0| 0.0| 6.25| 0.049 | VI | 36.9( 59.4) DMG |34.2700|117.5400|09/12/1970|143053.0| 8.0| 5.40| 0.022 | IV | 37.5( 60.4) DMG |33.9000|117.2000|12/19/1880| 0 0 0.0| 0.0| 6.00| 0.038 | V | 37.6( 60.5) MGI |34.1000|117.3000|07/15/1905|2041 0.0| 0.0| 5.30| 0.020 | IV | 37.8( 60.8) DMG |34.3000|117.6000|07/30/1894| 512 0.0| 0.0| 6.00| 0.038 | V | 38.0( 61.1) DMG |34.2000|117.4000|07/22/1899| 046 0.0| 0.0| 5.50| 0.024 | IV | 38.1( 61.3) DMG |34.3000|117.5000|07/22/1899|2032 0.0| 0.0| 6.50| 0.054 | VI | 40.4( 65.0) MGI |34.0000|118.5000|11/19/1918|2018 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.014 | IV | 40.5( 65.2) DMG |34.0000|118.5000|08/04/1927|1224 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.014 | IV | 40.5( 65.2) DMG |34.3700|117.6500|12/08/1812|15 0 0.0| 0.0| 7.00| 0.076 | VII| 41.7( 67.1) PAS |33.9190|118.6270|01/19/1989| 65328.8| 11.9| 5.00| 0.011 | III| 46.0( 74.0) Page 2 EQ Search WLC Orange FS1 DMG |33.9500|118.6320|08/31/1930| 04036.0| 0.0| 5.20| 0.013 | III| 46.7( 75.2) GSP |34.2310|118.4750|03/20/1994|212012.3| 13.0| 5.30| 0.014 | IV | 47.5( 76.4) DMG |33.8000|117.0000|12/25/1899|1225 0.0| 0.0| 6.40| 0.039 | V | 48.3( 77.7) DMG |33.7500|117.0000|04/21/1918|223225.0| 0.0| 6.80| 0.054 | VI | 48.3( 77.8) DMG |33.7500|117.0000|06/06/1918|2232 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.011 | III| 48.3( 77.8) PAS |33.9440|118.6810|01/01/1979|231438.9| 11.3| 5.00| 0.010 | III| 49.3( 79.4) GSP |34.2130|118.5370|01/17/1994|123055.4| 18.0| 6.70| 0.048 | VI | 49.5( 79.7) DMG |34.3080|118.4540|02/09/1971|144346.7| 6.2| 5.20| 0.012 | III| 50.2( 80.8) DMG |34.2000|117.1000|09/20/1907| 154 0.0| 0.0| 6.00| 0.025 | V | 51.1( 82.2) DMG |33.7100|116.9250|09/23/1963|144152.6| 16.5| 5.00| 0.009 | III| 52.9( 85.1) ------------------------- EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS ------------------------- Page 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | || TIME | | | SITE |SITE| APPROX. FILE| LAT. | LONG. | DATE | (UTC) |DEPTH|QUAKE| ACC. | MM | DISTANCE CODE| NORTH | WEST || H M Sec| (km)| MAG.| g |INT.| mi [km] ----+-------+--------+----------+--------+-----+-----+-------+----+------------ DMG |34.4110|118.4010|02/09/1971|141028.0| 8.0| 5.30| 0.012 | III| 53.7( 86.3) DMG |34.4110|118.4010|02/09/1971|14 244.0| 8.0| 5.80| 0.019 | IV | 53.7( 86.3) DMG |34.4110|118.4010|02/09/1971|14 1 8.0| 8.0| 5.80| 0.019 | IV | 53.7( 86.3) DMG |34.4110|118.4010|02/09/1971|14 041.8| 8.4| 6.40| 0.033 | V | 53.7( 86.3) DMG |34.5190|118.1980|08/23/1952|10 9 7.1| 13.1| 5.00| 0.009 | III| 54.5( 87.7) GSB |34.3010|118.5650|01/17/1994|204602.4| 9.0| 5.20| 0.011 | III| 54.5( 87.7) GSP |34.3050|118.5790|01/29/1994|112036.0| 1.0| 5.10| 0.010 | III| 55.3( 89.0) DMG |34.3000|118.6000|04/04/1893|1940 0.0| 0.0| 6.00| 0.022 | IV | 56.0( 90.1) PAS |32.9710|117.8700|07/13/1986|1347 8.2| 6.0| 5.30| 0.011 | III| 56.4( 90.7) DMG |33.9500|116.8500|09/28/1946| 719 9.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.008 | III| 57.9( 93.2) DMG |34.1800|116.9200|01/16/1930| 034 3.6| 0.0| 5.10| 0.009 | III| 59.3( 95.4) DMG |34.1800|116.9200|01/16/1930| 02433.9| 0.0| 5.20| 0.009 | III| 59.3( 95.4) DMG |34.2670|116.9670|08/29/1943| 34513.0| 0.0| 5.50| 0.012 | III| 60.0( 96.5) ******************************************************************************* -END OF SEARCH- 66 EARTHQUAKES FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH AREA. TIME PERIOD OF SEARCH: 1800 TO 1999 LENGTH OF SEARCH TIME: 200 years THE EARTHQUAKE CLOSEST TO THE SITE IS ABOUT 13.8 MILES (22.2 km) AWAY. LARGEST EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE FOUND IN THE SEARCH RADIUS: 7.0 LARGEST EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION FROM THIS SEARCH: 0.160 g COEFFICIENTS FOR GUTENBERG & RICHTER RECURRENCE RELATION: a-value= 1.043 b-value= 0.349 beta-value= 0.803 ------------------------------------ TABLE OF MAGNITUDES AND EXCEEDANCES: ------------------------------------ Earthquake | Number of Times | Cumulative Magnitude | Exceeded | No. / Year Page 3 EQ Search WLC Orange FS1 -----------+-----------------+------------ 4.0 | 66 | 0.33166 4.5 | 66 | 0.33166 5.0 | 66 | 0.33166 5.5 | 23 | 0.11558 6.0 | 15 | 0.07538 6.5 | 5 | 0.02513 7.0 | 2 | 0.01005 Page 4 EQ Fault *********************** * * * E Q F A U L T * * * * Version 3.00 * * * *********************** DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER: 12482.001 DATE: 08-20-2019 JOB NAME: WLC Orange FS1 CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.7873 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.8411 SEARCH RADIUS: 60 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 20) Sadigh et al. (1997) Horiz. - Soil UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: clodis SCOND: 0 Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: Campbell SHR: COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 0.0 Page 1 EQ Fault --------------- EQFAULT SUMMARY --------------- ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT | APPROXIMATE |------------------------------- ABBREVIATED | DISTANCE | MAXIMUM | PEAK |EST. SITE FAULT NAME | mi (km) |EARTHQUAKE| SITE |INTENSITY | | MAG.(Mw) | ACCEL. g |MOD.MERC. ================================|==============|==========|==========|========= ELYSIAN PARK THRUST | 8.6( 13.9)| 6.7 | 0.303 | IX WHITTIER | 8.8( 14.1)| 6.8 | 0.243 | IX COMPTON THRUST | 9.9( 15.9)| 6.8 | 0.287 | IX NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) | 12.2( 19.6)| 6.9 | 0.199 | VIII ELSINORE-GLEN IVY | 12.6( 20.3)| 6.8 | 0.184 | VIII CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) | 13.0( 20.9)| 6.7 | 0.220 | IX NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) | 14.2( 22.9)| 6.9 | 0.175 | VIII SAN JOSE | 17.5( 28.2)| 6.5 | 0.147 | VIII PALOS VERDES | 22.2( 35.8)| 7.1 | 0.129 | VIII SIERRA MADRE | 23.9( 38.4)| 7.0 | 0.145 | VIII CUCAMONGA | 24.2( 39.0)| 7.0 | 0.142 | VIII RAYMOND | 27.7( 44.5)| 6.5 | 0.088 | VII CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT | 28.5( 45.8)| 6.5 | 0.084 | VII VERDUGO | 29.8( 47.9)| 6.7 | 0.092 | VII ELSINORE-TEMECULA | 30.0( 48.3)| 6.8 | 0.076 | VII HOLLYWOOD | 32.0( 51.5)| 6.4 | 0.067 | VI SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO | 35.6( 57.3)| 6.7 | 0.058 | VI CORONADO BANK | 36.2( 58.2)| 7.4 | 0.093 | VII SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY | 38.2( 61.4)| 6.9 | 0.061 | VI SANTA MONICA | 38.4( 61.8)| 6.6 | 0.062 | VI SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino | 40.1( 64.5)| 7.3 | 0.077 | VII SAN ANDREAS - Southern | 40.1( 64.5)| 7.4 | 0.082 | VII SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture | 40.3( 64.9)| 7.8 | 0.106 | VII SAN ANDREAS - Mojave | 40.3( 64.9)| 7.1 | 0.066 | VI CLEGHORN | 42.2( 67.9)| 6.5 | 0.040 | V SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) | 42.8( 68.8)| 6.7 | 0.058 | VI MALIBU COAST | 43.1( 69.4)| 6.7 | 0.058 | VI SAN GABRIEL | 44.5( 71.6)| 7.0 | 0.054 | VI NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge) | 46.2( 74.4)| 6.9 | 0.061 | VI NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) | 48.2( 77.6)| 7.0 | 0.063 | VI ANACAPA-DUME | 50.9( 81.9)| 7.3 | 0.074 | VII ROSE CANYON | 51.3( 82.6)| 6.9 | 0.042 | VI SANTA SUSANA | 52.8( 84.9)| 6.6 | 0.040 | V SAN JACINTO-ANZA | 53.2( 85.6)| 7.2 | 0.050 | VI ELSINORE-JULIAN | 55.4( 89.1)| 7.1 | 0.044 | VI HOLSER | 58.6( 94.3)| 6.5 | 0.032 | V ******************************************************************************* Page 2 EQ Fault -END OF SEARCH- 36 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ELYSIAN PARK THRUST FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 8.6 MILES (13.9 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.3030 g Page 3 APPENDIX E GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Leighton 1 3030.495 LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 GENERAL 1 1.1 Intent 1 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record 1 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor 2 2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED 2 2.1 Clearing and Grubbing 2 2.2 Processing 3 2.3 Overexcavation 3 2.4 Benching 3 2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas 3 3.0 FILL MATERIAL 4 3.1 General 4 3.2 Oversize 4 3.3 Import 4 4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 4 4.1 Fill Layers 4 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning 4 4.3 Compaction of Fill 5 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes 5 4.5 Compaction Testing 5 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing 5 4.7 Compaction Test Locations 5 5.0 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION 6 6.0 EXCAVATION 6 7.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS 6 7.1 Safety 6 7.2 Bedding and Backfill 6 7.3 Lift Thickness 6 7.4 Observation and Testing 6 1 3030.495 LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 1.0 General 1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s). 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading. Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing. During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. 2 3030.495 LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations. The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. 2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 2.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. 3 3030.495 LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. 2.2 Processing: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. 2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 2.4 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill. 2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches. 4 3030.495 LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 3.0 Fill Material 3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. 3.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 4.1 Fill Layers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). 5 3030.495 LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557-91. 4.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches). 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met. 4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided. 6 3030.495 LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 5.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys. 6.0 Excavation Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.0 Trench Backfills 7.1 Safety: The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. 7.2 Bedding and Backfill: All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. 7.3 Lift Thickness: Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method. 7.4 Observation and Testing: The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1862-18 ZONE CHANGE NO. 1301-20, DESIGN REVIEW NO. 5008-20, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 0016-20 RESOLUTION NO. PC 20-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ORANGE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1862-18 AND APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 1301-20, DESIGN REVIEW NO. 5008-20, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 0016-20 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FIRE STATION NO. 1 AND HEADQUARTERS LOCATED AT 105 S. WATER STREET AND THE ASSOCIATED PARKING LOT LOCATED AT 180 WATER STREET APPLICANT: CITY OF ORANGE Moved by _______, and seconded by _______ that the following resolution be adopted: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has authority per Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Table 17.08.020, OMC Section 17.10.020, and Section 7.A of the City of Orange Local CEQA Guidelines to review and make recommendations to the City Council relating to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1862-18, Zone Change No. 1301-20, Design Review No. 5008-20, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 0016-20; and WHEREAS, the property subject to Zone Change No. 1301-20 has had a zoning classification of Office Professional and Single Family Residential, 6,000 sq. ft., which is not consistent with the Public Facilities and Institutions General Plan land use designation; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65860 requires consistency between a city’s General Plan and zoning designations; and WHEREAS, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1862-18, Zone Change No. 1301-20, Design Review No. 5008-20, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 0016-20 were reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the OMC and City policies and procedures; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2020, the City Streamlined Multi-Disciplinary Accelerated Review Team reviewed the project and recommended that the project proceed; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2020, the Community Development Director recommended that the project be approved for Design Review based on an understanding that the Department of Public Works will work with applicable City Departments to address the considerations identified in the Design Review staff report; and Planning Commission Resolution No. P.C. 20-20 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted one duly advertised public hearing on August 24, 2020, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of, or opposition to, the proposal and for the purpose of considering Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1862-18, Zone Change No. 1301-20, Design Review No. 5008-20, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 0016-20, relating to property described as follows: 105 SOUTH WATER STREET- LOTS 1 THROUGH 8, IN BLOCK B, OF THE JAMESON TRACT IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, COUNTY OF ORANGE AS RECORDED IN BOOK 13, PAGE 44 IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA) 180 SOUTH WATER STREET- CHAPMAN TR LOT 2 BLK D PORS OF LOT TR 175 – APN No. 390-452-05 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1862-18, Zone Change No. 1301-20, Design Review No. 5008-20, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 0016-20, to change existing zoning from Office Professional (O-P) and Single Family Residential (R-1-6) to Public Institution (P-I) (1) to better reflect the existing nature of the land uses in the neighborhood and to ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Public Facilities and Institutions Land Use Designation, (2) to authorize the design and construction of Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters, and adopt an Ordinance establishing the subject Zone Change, as depicted on maps included in Attachment A to this Resolution, attached hereto, at 105 S. Water Street including the associated parking lot at 180 S. Water Street, and (3) to consolidate the underlying parcels based on the following findings: SECTION 1 – FINDINGS General Plan 1. The project must be consistent with the goals and policies stated within the City’s General Plan. The proposed Public Institution (P-I) zoning is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI) designation. Establishing P-I zoning on the site would eliminate the existing General Plan/zoning inconsistency in conformance with state law and is the appropriate zoning designation to facilitate a Fire Station and Headquarters building. The P-I zoning is also consistent with the adjacent P-I zoning designation for the Water Yard use. The General Plan contains Land Use Element policies 6.1 and 6.2 which encourage good urban design and reducing land use conflicts between residential and non-residential uses which the project accomplishes through such features as minimized height, perimeter walls and fencing, and ample landscaping. The project also is consistent with Safety Element Goals 3.0 and 6.0 in that the project will assist in protecting lives and property from urban and wildland fires, will provide up to Planning Commission Resolution No. P.C. 20-20 Page 3 date infrastructure, and will enable the City to provide public safety services of the highest quality. The project is also consistent with Noise Element Goal 1.0 in that a noise attenuating wall and enclosure is provided to maintain noise thresholds for the surroundings. The project is consistent with Urban Design Element Goals 3.0 and 6.0 in that the project design promotes the appearance of the site with the new fire station and headquarters building in way that provides a contemporary interpretation of historic buildings in nearby Old Towne, demarks a primary entry route into Old Towne, and furthers the announcement of this public-services-concentrated area of the City where the Water Yard, Library, and City Hall are all within half a mile or less of each other. Hence, the project promotes contextually appropriate infill development on a currently vacant lot. In addition, the project will provide design compatibility with the surroundings through the use of compatible architecture, materials, fencing, landscaping and enhancement of an existing storage building. Therefore, the project is consistent with General Plan goals and policies. Design Review 1. The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards, and their required findings (OMC 17.10.07.G.3). The project is respectful of the area community aesthetics and sensitive to the gateway corridor to Old Towne in that it utilizes architectural elements appropriate to a fire station and headquarters office. Several of the building materials are characteristic of corridor buildings including the use of plaster walls, brick façade, hip roof forms, and architectural detailing. The height of the building is minimized to that needed to support apparatus bays and crew occupancy, and office needs. The second story component is stepped back from the first story level and a public entry point is focused under a tower feature. The building provides architectural interest via indentations in architectural plane. Architectural elements are alternated and intertwined. Windows are regularly- spaced. Landscaping is provided around the perimeter of the sites and includes an adequate setback with trees that soften views to the building and parking lots. The building is sited between three streets which further reduces any impacts of mass to adjacent properties. Repurposing of the existing storage building will ensure that no greater visual mass will occur than exists for that building now and planned improvements would enhance the appearance. There is no specific plan or applicable design standards applicable to this property. Tentative Parcel Map 1. The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Government Code Section 65451. This finding is met as described in the General Plan Consistency finding. There is no specific plan for this site. Planning Commission Resolution No. P.C. 20-20 Page 4 2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. This finding is met as described in the General Plan Consistency finding. There is no specific plan for this site. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is flat with no topographical obstructions, or subsurface conditions that would hinder construction and the site maintains direct access to the public right-of-way where all utilities necessary to serve the project are located. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site combined with the Water Yard facilities maintains a 0.38 Floor Area Ratio (FAR), which is less than the 0.5 FAR maximum allowed by the General Plan Land Use Element. All the necessary Fire Station and administrative Headquarters offices and apparatus bays are easily accommodated on the site in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding area through the use of minimalized height, stepbacks, indentation in building plane, and hip or flat roof usage. 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The subdivision is merely for parcel consolidation. There is no significant habitat on the site other than trees. There are no other significant habitats that would result in substantial injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat as a result of the subdivision. Rather, the fire suppression support that the fire station would provide would likely preserve habitat. Biological mitigation measures from Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1862- 18 reduce potential construction impacts to nesting birds to less than significant levels. 6. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Fire Station No. 1 would respond to public and individual health threats. Hence no public health problems are anticipated, rather public health enhancement is anticipated. 7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The site has a wall or fence barrier around it. The public does not use the site for access. Existing vehicular and pedestrian access will remain along the Chapman Avenue, Water Street, and Jameson Street rights-of-way. Site Plan 1. The project is compatible with surrounding development and neighborhoods. Planning Commission Resolution No. P.C. 20-20 Page 5 The project has been reviewed by staff and designed in a manner compatible with height, massing, architecture and landscaping that integrate with the project surroundings for the public benefit. The architecture of the Orange Fire Station No. 1 and Headquarters has been designed to reflect the Spanish Revival style found throughout the Old Towne Orange Historic District. The two-story building will have an offset massing that steps back from the street as the building increases in height. The roof will be a combination of flat parapet areas flanked by low -sloped mansards. Concrete roofing tiles, designed to simulate clay, will be used on all sloped roof areas. The west side will feature a second-story arcade element and a heavy-timber pergola to help break up the massing. Window and door openings, with charcoal gray frames, will occur symmetrically at exterior planes, at regular intervals. The exterior finish is primarily composed of a smooth, cream-colored stucco, terracotta-colored brick veneer and cast concrete panels. Decorative wrought iron details, period style lighting, and a small tower element at the main entrance will help complete the historic styling. Parking to support the project will be provided on and adjacent to the Fire Station and Headquarters and fencing and landscaping will be used to diminish any significant appearance of mass or view of parking areas. 2. The project conforms to City development standards and any applicable special design guidelines or specific plan requirements. The project design and construction has occurred under City staff oversight to meet City needs and specifications in relation to fire prevention, fire suppression, emergency response, area context, and site design. Pursuant to Government Code sections 53090(a) and 53091(a) the City is not required to strictly comply with its zoning ordinances. Hence the Zoning Code’s height limitation of 32 feet, the tree count calculation of the Landscape Design Guidelines, and the 6-foot wall height limitation do not apply to this project. Instead, the project has been reviewed by staff and designed in a manner compatible with height, massing, architecture and landscaping that integrate with the project surroundings for the public benefit. There are no special design guidelines nor a specific plan for this site. 3. The project provides for safe and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation, both on- and off-site. The project provides for emergency vehicle exiting onto Chapman Avenue and re-entry via Water Street. Employee and visitor parking is accessible off of Water Street. Pedestrian access occurs via existing sidewalks on Chapman Avenue and Water Street with safe crossing at the Chapman Avenue and Water Street corners. Notification striping and signage will be utilized to notify vehicular and pedestrian traffic of emergency response vehicle exiting onto Chapman Avenue. 4. City services are available and adequate to serve the project. The project is infill development located in an urban area where all wet and dry utilities, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and City services are available. The Fire Station and Headquarters building itself are a City service. Planning Commission Resolution No. P.C. 20-20 Page 6 5. The project has been designed to fully mitigate or substantially minimize adverse environmental effects. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1862-18 was prepared for the project and includes mitigation measures adopted for the purpose of reducing potentially significant impacts to nesting birds, cultural resources, Native American cultural resources, and paleontological deposits to less than significant levels. SECTION 2 – ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1862-18 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment, with the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures. The draft MND was circulated for a 30-day public review period from June 25, 2020, ending on July 25, 2020. Copies of the MND were available for public review at City Hall and on the City’s website. On June 24, 2020, the City sent a combined Public Hearing and Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1862-18 to a total of 201 property owners/tenants within a 300-foot radius of the project site plus, a combination of 37 agencies and/or persons specifically requesting notice. A notice was published in the Orange County Register newspaper on June 25, 2020. The project site was posted in three locations with the notification on that same date. The Planning Commission reviewed and considered written comment letters during the CEQA public review period along with any testimony at the public hearing. After examining the MND and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 20-20 recommending that the City Council find that that the project will not create significant environmental impacts. SECTION 3 – MITIGATION MEASURES BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following mitigation measures are imposed with project approval: BIO-1: Nesting Birds. If Project clearing and construction must occur during the avian nesting season (February 1 to September 1), a survey for active nests must be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to the activities to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the Project site. If no active nests are discovered or identified, no further mitigation is required. In the event that active nests are discovered on site, Planning Commission Resolution No. P.C. 20-20 Page 7 a suitable buffer determined by the qualified biologist should be established around such active nests. Buffers typically have a minimum width of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors). No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Limits of construction to avoid a nest site shall be established in the field by a qualified biologist with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be instructed regarding the ecological sensitivity of the fenced area. The results of the survey shall be documented and filed with the Community Development Director within five days after the survey. CUL-1 In the event a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during earthwork activities, as determined by the foreperson, qualified Native American Monitor, or any City official, all subsurface construction activities within a 100 - foot radius of the find shall cease and workers shall avoid altering the materials until a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology has evaluated the situation. The City of Orange Public Works Department shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in the construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any resources found during construction activities shall expeditiously be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, glass, ceramics, wood, or shell artifacts, or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined to be significant under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, the qualified archaeologist shall expeditiously prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The archaeologist shall also expeditiously perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive report complete with methods, results, and recommendations, and provide for the permanent curation or repatriation of the recovered resources in cooperation with the designated most likely descendant as needed. The report shall be submitted to the City of Orange Community Development Department, the South Central Coastal Information Center, and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), if required. GEO-1 In the event a previously unrecorded paleontological deposit is encountered during construction; all activity shall cease in the vicinity of the find and be redirected elsewhere, and the City shall be immediately informed of the discovery. A paleontologist shall be retained by the City to make recommendations on the treatment of the deposits. The recommendations shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resources Code Planning Commission Resolution No. P.C. 20-20 Page 8 Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15126.4. The City shall be consulted on the treatment of the deposits. The City shall follow all recommendations made by the paleontologist. The deposits shall not be disturbed or removed until the appropriate treatment has been recommended by the paleontologist and approved by the City. No construction activity in the vicinity of the find, the boundary of which shall be determined by the paleontologist, may resume until the recommendations for treatment of the deposits have been implemented. If applicable, the final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures shall be submitted to the Community Development Department when finalized. The final written report shall be submitted to the appropriate regional paleontological Information Center within three months after work has been completed. TCR-1: Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the project site, the project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation – the tribe that consulted on this project pursuant to Assembly Bill A52 (the “Tribe” or the “Consulting Tribe”). The monitor will have experience working with a qualified archaeologist, as defined in the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, and/or education or professional training in a related field, such as anthropology, archaeology or ethnology. A copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Orange Community Development Department prior to the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The on-site monitoring shall commence when ground-disturbing activities begin and shall end when the project site ground-disturbing activities are completed, or when the Native American Monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources, whichever occurs first. Ground disturbing activities are defined as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The Tribal Monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be assessed. All Tribal Cultural Resources unearthed by project activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor approved by the Consulting Tribe. If the resources are determined to be Native American in origin, the Consulting Tribe will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized at the Project Site, all ground disturbance Planning Commission Resolution No. P.C. 20-20 Page 9 shall immediately cease, and the county coroner shall be notified per Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Work may continue on other parts of the Project Site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f). If the resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor to be a non-Native American resource the applicant would be required to implement MM CUL-1. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted on August 24, 2020, by the Planning Commission of the City of Orange by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Dave Simpson, Planning Commission Chair Date